c: «-, 



C ^ 



fJ 



Hi 



























-A 0^% 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



r ^B 


v-^ 


< « 


( <c 


C ^"^ 


43C1 


^^ 


c <XI 


cr ^ 


<ic 


<c ^ 


. ^ 


ci C 


' cc 


cc c: 


4<C 


CC2 C 


KC 


<c^ c 


.i-^C 


cc c 


jc^C 


«5C ^ 


^<.<c 


<s::< 


L.'<t 


<?: 


c«v 


<c£ cc 




\^' 


Cc< 
C^v 


< ^L <^ <'■ 


V <c 


c< 


t m^ 


c ^c 


\ ^: 


C't 



PRF.SENTED BY 

iMu.7fn.^ 

UMTED STATED OF AMEEIOA. 



rx-^S^ 



It ^s^ 



,^ ^< ^ 



c:^S 



<xcc 









^.^^^ 






C c 

c c 









"•<C 
"<C 

:cc 



c <^<^ 

c <c 












ki 


















^. .«: 















,.r^^-<C<: 









c <^< 






^^TC r < 















:: ex 






.<L<.:<: 









c<-^ 



c\t-^cS: 



^ 



::.C 




Sfe 


< 


cc 


V < 


cc 


< 


cc 


< 


C«..' . 


< 


c<. 


C 


Cc 


C 




< 
<: 


s.^gg 


^1 




^^ 


■"^^1 


jr_^ 



c ciO:'C^ 
i:^c<c:- 
:cc<^ 



^ If 






li 



m^ 






M 



REMARKS 



ON 



A LETTER OF ME. DAYID JONES 



ADDRESSED TO THE AUTHOR 



ON OCCASION OF 



HIS SERMON ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



TO WHICH is ADDED 



A REVIEW 



Mr. Bobinson's History of Baptism, 



r 



BY JOHN P. CAMPBEIX 



PHIIiADELPHIA: 
PRTNTED BY DENNIS HEART T 

tsu. 






PREFACE. 



As little things sometimes lead to consider- 
able events, so it is hoped that Mr. Jones' late 
work, containing a review of my sermon on 
Cliristian Baptism, and an examination of Mr. 
Edward's pamphlet, a work which must be 
thought, I conceive, by every competent and un- 
prejudiced judge, a little thing, too little to de- 
serve formal notice, may nevertheless have its 
uses. Its appeai-ance before the public with confi- 
dent, and to persons little informed, Avith impo- 
singpretensions, and especially its high estima- 
tion and currency with many of the advocates of 
immersion, make some reply necessary; and in 
thiseventitmaybeconsideredasgivingoccasion 
to the introduction of new and important mat- 
ter on the points in controversy, and thus be- 
coming greatly useful to the interests of Chris- 
tian baptism. But what most deserves our no- 
tice concerning this production on the score of 
consequential or indirect utility, is, that it af- 
fords a fair occasion for coming into contact 
Mith the Baptist historian, Mr. Robinson, and, 
by a review of his work, for laying before the 
public a variety of facts vastly important to 
the solution of the question relative to the 



practice of the Christian church, as to bap^ 
tism, in the first ages of its existence. In the 
review of Mr. Robinson's history 1 have aim- 
ed at reducing the facts wJiich bear upon the 
question to as short a compass as possible, and 
thus presenting tlie religious world with an 
abstract of historical evidence as it respects 
both the subjects and the mode of baptism, 
for the first four centuries, Mhich shall be ac- 
cessible to every reader. Sucli an abstract, it 
is presumed, is greatly needed, in as much as 
Mr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism is not 
only a rare book but too voluminous for general 
circulation. That the work may be satisfactory 
to the learnedj as well as useful to the common 
reader, I have in all instances added tlie origi- 
nal passages from the Fathers, except in a few 
quotations where the length of tlie passage, or 
other important reasons, seemed to forbid it. In 
tlie execution of the work now proposed to the 
public, I have examined most of the original 
authorities for myself, and having made the 
quotations directly, know them to be correct. 
Indeed, in no instance have I cited a single 
passage from the early Christian writers but 
such as are cited either from the original itself, 
or such authority as has been always admitted 
by the more learned and respectable Baptist 
authors. 

When I had my conviction first settled on 
tljc subject of baptism it was on the ground of 
scriptural evidence alone; because at that time 
I neither knew nor sought any other. Indeed, 



the evidence from history had, on the one hand, 
been so partially stated, and on tlie other, so 
violently spurned as sottish tradition, that it 
seemed to hold out to the inquisitive and anx- 
ious mind little more than a dubious and per- 
haps a deceitful light. I had, therefore, aban- 
doned almost entirely that species of evidence; 
but for some time past I have spent my hours 
of leisure in examining the report of the fa- 
thers respecting baptism, and the result of my 
researches has been a full conviction that the 
whole light of antiquity is fiivourable to tlie 
practice of baptizing infants, and not materially 
opposed to our viev* s of the mode of baptism: — 
that the Psedobaptist writers, such as Baxter, 
Craddock and Wall, have faithfullj'^ reported 
the testimony of the Fathers: — and that the re- 
presentations of the Baptist writers, generally 
speaking, were far, very far from being strictly, 
much less impartially just. Never did my mind 
feel more entirely and exultingly the triumph 
of evidence than when 1 read Mr. Robinson's 
History of Baptism, and saw that after all his 
painful and elaborate research into antiquitj he 
was unable to find any thing solid to oppose to 
the facts so luminously and so cogently stated 
on the other side. 

It will perhaps be said that Mr. Eobinson's 
workisbutlittle known, and that any suchreview 
of it is unimportant. Butalthough the bookbein 
few hands, yet there is reason to believe that 
no small number of the Baptist preachers have 
had access to it. and are employed in giving 



diffusive circulation to the author's imposing 
representations; and at any rate Mr. Jones has 
endeavoured to do the same thing, or at least 
to give celebrity to the work, by his late pub- 
lication, which is industriously circulated in 
our country. I may add also that Mr. Robinson, 
as an historian, has been made instrumental in 
bringing over the western New-Lights to im- 
mersion, and has lent his illuminations to the 
Shakers, who, linding the iniidei spirit and dis- 
torted representations apparent in his works, 
and particularly in his Ecclesiastical Research- 
es, entirely to their taste, have quoted him as 
an authority of great moment in their blasphe- 
mous testimony. A corrective, therefore, was 
imperiously required, and in the following Re* 
view it has been humbly attempted. 



REMARKS 

ON 

MR. JONES' LETTER, 



Mr. Jones' Review of my sermon on Christian 
Baptism has some claim upon my attention; not indeed 
upon the footing of intrinsic merit, but on the ground 
of pubhc expectation, which always seems to invoke 
a defence, even where the assault is feeble and harm- 
less. 

It might be deemed indecorous did I pass over in en-, 
tire silence the author's polite reproof of my total igno- 
rance of antiquity, and my consequent temerity in pub- 
lishing a work " so contrary to the sentiments of learn- 
ed men and truth;'' or it might be thought a violation, 
of the laws of gratitude no less than of decorum did I 
forget his kind pity for my weakness in writing on a sub- 
ject with which I was so little acquainted, or his very 
charitable apology for my aberrations from truth when 
he says I have been " led astray by authors not fully 
informed on the subject;" and yet I must honestly 
confess myself but little prepared to appreciate either 
the gentleman's superior information or those soft emo- 
tions of pity and charity which thrill his benevolent 
bosom! 

I shall be allowed, I presume, to ask who are those 
learned men whose sentiments I have so flagrantly out- 
raged by my sermon? Mr. Jones mentions none but 



Dr. Gill, and him only in reference to Jewish proselyte 
baptism. He thinks had I read that author's disserta- 
tion on the subject my sermon had never appeared. I 
cannot tell how it may affect him to know it, but I 
w^ill now inform him that I was no stranger to Dr. 
Gill previous to its publication, and yet my sermon 
did appear. I did not then, nor do I now think, that 
any thing which has been opposed to the existence of 
Jewish proselyte baptism before the time of Christ by 
Gill, Gale, Benson, Booth and Robinson, can at all 
invalidate the enlightened induction of facts and solid 
inferences of Lightfoot, Selden, Hammond, Wall, and 
other distinguished writers on die opposite side. Much 
less do they invalidate the testimonies of the Christian 
Fathers and the Jewish writers themselves, who, it 
may be justly presumed, were infinitely better ac- 
quainted with the history and customs of the ancient 
Jews than any modern writer can possibly be. The 
author touches the same subject once or twice after- 
wards, but does little more than eulogize Dr. Gill's 
pamphlet, which he says no man ever presumed to 
answer, and which he recommends to the people of 
Kentucky for republication as an unanswerable pro- 
duction*-. As to the circumstance of its never hav- 
ing been answered there is but little cause of tri- 
umph; because a production may be too frivolous to 
deserve an answer, or it may have failed so entirely in 
accomplishing its object, as to render a reply to it su- 
perfluous. This last is precisely the fact with respect to 
Dr. Gill, who in that very treatise has failed to over- 
throw the stubborn facts and luminous arguments of 
Mr. Wall and others. Indeed a public decision has been 
given in favour of Mr. Wall, as well as the doctrine 
he advocates, by a bench of critics distinguished for 
literary eminence. When such men as Abenaethy, 
Bonnycastle, Crowe, Dickson, Tooke, Wood, Hincks, 

* Review, page 11, 15. 



with their illustrious associates in review, have given 
it as their deliberate judgment that '' Mr, Wall has 
7fiade it highly probable, to say the least, from many 
testimonies of the Jewish wTiters, who, without a dis- 
senting voice, allow the fact, that the practice of Jew- 
ish baptism obtained before, and at, as w^ell as after, 
our Saviour's time;" and moreover proceed to evince 
the fact by forcible arguments of their own, it must 
be deemed a matter of trivial iir portance whether or 
not Dr. Gill has been directly answered.* And with 
respect to the reprinting of the unanswerable pamphlet 
in Kentucky I will pledge myself, whenever it shall be 
done, to produce, if heaven permit, something in op- 
position quite as unanswerable as itself. To eveiy im- 
partial inquirer the Jewish testimonies must have great 
■weight, and especially when it is considered that the 
practice which is reported to have had so ancient a 
date in their history, did still exist among them. Add 
to this the testimony of the Christian Fathers, as 
IreuEcus, Tertullian, Clemens of Alexandria, Ori- 
gen, Cyprian, Basil, and Gregory Nazianzen, all of 
whom give testimony to the same fact. Surely these 
men, and the ancient Jewish writers, are much more 
entitled to credit than are Dr. Gill and a few other 
modern authors. 

But Mr. Jones, as if distrusting the lights of Dr.' 
Gill, carries the appeal to " the law and to the testimo- 
ny," and this he is very sure contains nothing like a 
hint of any such custom. Maimonides says baptism 
was in the desert before the giving of the law, and 
quotes Exodus xix. 10. in proof of it; considering the 
w^ord sanctify as bearing the same signification with 
baptize. And indeed Dr. Hammond lends his autho- 
rity to the same interpretation, in his note on 1 Cor. 
vii. 14. where he observes that the Hebrew word 
2(^*1 p, commonly interpreted to sanctify, signified 
to wash. And nothing is better known than that (^y<>- 

* See Rees' Cyclopedia. Art. Baptism. 

B 



10 

tft^oj, the c(3rrcsponding word in Greek, often denote!^ 
to cleanse^ to purify by religious washings to conse- 
crate, and die like. In this sense the New Testa- 
ment writers use it frequently; and Gregory Naziaii- 
zen with the Greek fathers, make use of it to express 
baptism.'^ In the sixteenth chapter of Ezekiel's pro- 
phecy there is a very distinct allusion, not only to bap- 
tism, but even to the baptism of infants. ^' I sware un- 
to thee and entered into covenant with thee, saith the 
Lord God, and thou becamest mine; the?i washed I 
thee with water, yea, I thoroughly washed away thy 
blood from thee and annointed thee w^ith oil." See v. 
1 — 9. The accession of God^s ancient people to his 
covenant, and their visible relation to himself after their 
deliverance from a state of nature, was by washing with 
water, or baptism, just as the new born infant was 
washed with water after the birth. John i. 25. can 
have no other allusion than to the baptism of pro- 
selytes, though Mr. Jones has been pleased to call the 
comment made upon it in my sermon a fancy of my 
own, and foreign to truth. The priests and Levites 
express no surprise at John's baptizing on any other 
account than that of his not being " the Christ, nor 
Elias, nor 2i prophet. ^^^ Had he been either the one or 
the other of these three it would have been deemed 
satisfactory by this deputation; but upon John's deny- 
ing that he was either, they instantly remon- 
strated against the impropriety of his baptizing and 
collecting followers. " TVhy baptizest thou then?'''' 
The question carries a clear implication that baptism 
was not a new thing in their nation, and that a prophet 
would have been expected to perform it; for it is plain 

* See Dr. Campbell's Pi-eliminary Dissertations. D, vi. P. iv. 

t A jirojihet — So the words o ^rgoipjjT)}? are rendered in the 
margin of Scoti's Bible, and so it is evident they should have been 
rendered; because it is nnanifest the Jews had no particular pro- 
phet in expectation except Eliiis; many of them looked for " Jere- 
miah or one of the prophets." Matt. xvi. 14. Mark xvi. 15. Luke 
ix. 8. To translate the words " the fir op he t** and explain them as 
meaning Christ, is, to be sure^ a miserable gloss. 



11 

they speak of the rite as a thing m ith which they were 
ah'eady acquainted, but are at a loss to see the reason 
of his performing it. As to the suggestion of Mr. 
Jones that the comment is an imagination of my own 
— a suggestion which was doubtless designed to ope- 
rate unfavourably upon the success of the opinion in the 
world, I have only to observe, that were it even true, it 
would not disgrace ftie; but in reality the fact is other- 
wise, for many persons, distinguished for their talents 
and literature, have taken the same view of the text 
which I have done; and had the gentleman been as 
largely read as he would have his readers think, he 
w^ould have spared a remark which serves only to ex- 
pose himself. 

The gentleman proceeds to correct a mistake of 
mine, namely, using the words disciple and proselyte 
as synonymous terms. " Proselyte," says he, " means 
a person who embraces the Jewish system; but it is 
never applied to one who professed Christianity, whe- 
ther Jew or Greek." p. 6. I used the word proselyte, 
in its plain English sense, and in the very sense which, 
I presume, Mr. Jones, notwithstanding this meagre 
criticism, uses it himself. In his examination of Mr. 
Edwards' pamphlet, p. 172, he intimates a hope as to 
the good effects of his book with men of learning and 
piety, that if it should induce them toexaminethe subject 
wdth candour he has no doubt " but some proselytes 
may be miade in America." If his own definition is to 
be made the rule of interpretation, that the wox^ prose- 
lyte signifies one '■^ who embraces the Jewish system^^"^ 
not one who professes Christianity^ then we will be 
compelled to believe that Mr. Jones hopes his 
book may make men Jews, not Christians. But 
surely he did not mean this — and, therefore, when he 
comes to correct me he gives the word a meaning 
which either he himself does not believe, or which, if 
he does, would make him and all who think with him, 
Jews. No; after all he understands the word as I do, to 



12 

designate a person who is brought over, or becomes a 
convert to any doctrine or religion, and consequently 
the Same thing with disciple. But " to render the word 
jWi»9>jT?uo-^T6 by the English word prosel?/te,^^ says the 
learned gentleman, *' is an unwarranted translation, 
wiiich none can approve of who are acquainted ^vith 
the Greek language." ibid. Ah, indeed! How then 
came Dr. Doddridge to adopt this very translation?^ 
"Go forth, therefore, and proselyte all nations."^ Was 
he not acquainted with Greek? So it would seem from 
the assertion of Mr. Jones, who unquestionably merits, 
if ever mortal did, the description once given ofa cer- 
tain polemic hero, 

" Learned he was, and could take note, 
Transcribe, collect, translate and quote."* 

I am refen^ed by the learned gentleman to his refuta- 
tion of Mr. Edwards to see '' the subject Jullt/ and 
fairly discussed!" — -Upon turning to that part of his 
work I find it replete with criticism which is designed 
to prove that the word jj^oiB-y.nva) means to teach, p. 166. 
He thinks Acts xiv. 15. a fine instance of the interpre- 
tation which he adopts — " When they had preached 
the gospel to that city and taught many.'^'' But if the 
rendering of Parkhurst and Doddridge, who translate 
the word to make disciples, be allowed, the text will 
afford a luminous proof that the word in question 
means some thing more than to teach— ihw?,^ " And 
having preached the gospel to that city and made many 
disciples J they returned again to Lystra."/{?/2;ziv. 1. is 
an instance no less unfortunate for the learned gentle- 
man's m^eaning; '^ the Pharisees had heard that Jesus 
made and baptized more disciples than John." This is 
just the very sense we contend for in Matt, xxviii. 19. 
jw^3->5Tfltf 'moioj is the best possible exposition of the 
meaning of fAocB-yinvu, both which mean to make disci- 
ples; and serves to show that our translation of the 

' Doddridge's translation of the New Testament. Matt, xxviii. 19. 



text in question is correct, thus '^ Go and make disci- 
pies of all nations, baptizing them, &c. and just so our 
translators have rendered this very word in the preced- 
ing chapter; Matt, xxvii. 57. '' Who also himself 
(f,w^9->jTgu(r5 tJ I>j(rou) was Jesus' disciple." 

' The author now takes a bold position, and chal- 
lenges the world to produce one passage in the Neru 
Testament where the word disciple is used in reference 
to a person 7iot previously taught, p. lb 7. One fact is 
worth a thousand criticisms; and in Acts xv. iO. he 
will find the word disciples applied to persons that 
could not have been previously taught. '^ Now, there- 
fore, why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck 
of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were 
able to bear." The fact which gave Occasion to this 
spirited remonstrance of Peter was, that certain persons 
from Judea went to Antioch and told the brethren that 
unless they should be circumcised after the manner of 
Moses they could not be saved. This occasioned a hot 
controversy among the Christians, and was referred for 
decision to a council of the apostles and brethren at 
Jerusalem. In that council, and on the subject of cir- 
cumcision, Peter was then speaking when he called it 
an intolerable yoke. Now, to whom, in Antioch, would 
the Judaizing teachers have applied circumcision? To 
all those that had believed the gospel and professed the 
religion of Jesus Christ, with their children, even to 
babes of eight days old; for all these, after the manner 
of Moses, w^ere required to be circumcised. To all 
these, then, to infants as well as to adults, the term dis- 
ciples is positively applied; and this plain fact puts 
aside the Baptist idea that a disciple is necessaril}^ one 
Avho has been actually taught. Infants, therefore, no less 
than adults, may be disciples in the scripture sense of 
the word; and being such, there is a positive conmiand 
for baptizing them. '' Qo m^l make disciples, baptizing 
them, I. e. disciples;" which statute, taken in connec- 
tion with the fore considered fact, does, according to 



14 

Liws of sound interpretation, amount to a positive pre- 
cept for infant baptism. Though it be quite sufficient 
to settle our fliith and practice, as Christians, that God 
has determined certain evangehcal institutions with- 
out inquiring into tlaeir fitness or utility; yet I may be 
allowed to ask, even on the ground of propriety, why 
may not infants be taken into the school of Clirist? 
Who will venture to deny that the great Teacher can 
have access to their tender minds even before they are 
capable of regular instruction? '' Who will undertake 
to limit the prophetical office of Christ, and say that his 
spirit can have no access to the soul of an infant? At any 
rate, infants soon become capable of instruction, and 
whose disciples should they be but Christ's? who has 
said, ' suffi::r little children and forbid them not to come 
unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.' " 

The learned gentleman then proceeds to prove, from 
ecclesiastical history, that in primitive times there were 
schools in which the candidates for baptism were care- 
fully instructed in the principles of the Christian religion 
before they were allowed to be baptized, p. 168. From 
Robinson's History of Baptism he presses us with a 
number of instances of persons, who, though the chil- 
dren of Christians, and even of bishops, were retained 
in the catechumen state for a greater or less time be- 
fore they received baptism; such as Gregory Nazian- 
zen, Nectarius, Chrysostom, Basil, and Constantine. 
With respect to the probationary state in order to bap- 
tism, I readily admit the fact of its having obtained for 
a considerable time in the Christian church; yet I must be 
allowed to remark, that however useful such an institu- 
tion might have originally been, there cannot remain a 
doubt that it was at the time to which this gentleman 
refers, and indeed long before it, a distinguished part 
of that monstrous system of corruption and supersti- 
tion, which ultimately overwhelmed the church of 
Christ. These catechumens, of whom Mr. Robinson 
and his admirer Mr. Jones makes so much, were mi- 



w 

tiated into the catechumen state by the sign of the 
cross and the imposition of hands, were divided into 
several orders, were exercised with fasting and confes- 
sion, went veiled some days before baptism, and pas- 
sed through several other probationary steps still more 
absurd and unscriptural, before they were consum- 
mated by baptism. 

Such is the worths/ institution to which we are re- 
ferred for proof that the ancients knew nothing^ of 
making disciples otherwise than by instruction. Now 
should the catechumen system be allowed to have 
been infinitely better than it really was, what has it to 
do in support of the cause of baptism, when they, as 
a society, catechize no bod}^, either for baptism or any 
thing else? Or if they did, still their conduct would 
stand in direct opposition to plain scriptural fact, as all 
the baptisms of the New Testament were instantane- 
ously performed upon the proselytism of the persons 
who were thus added to the church. The primitive 
method was, agreeably to the divine commission, first 
to disciple and baptize , and then to instruct. Some of 
the fathers and these gentlemen invert this order; first 
instruct in order to disciple, and then baptize. Whom 
we should follow none can be at a loss to determine. 
It is not denied that preaching the gospel involves in- 
struction to a certain degree, but then that is not the 
regular and systematic instruction for which Mr. Jones 
seems to contend. 

When Baptist writers thus recur to the history of 
the Fathers, or other persons of ancient times., who re- 
ceived baptism after passing a course of regular in- 
struction and at an advanced period of life, the world 
ought to know that the matter of fact has not been 
fairly and fully reported. In those ages the causes 
operating a delay of baptism were various, and candour 
required that they should have been stated by our op- 
ponents. There was at that time a glowing and highly su- 
perstitious veneration for baptismal water, whicji it wav 



16 

conceived, was so sanctified by the descent of the Holy 
Ghost upon it, and the incorporation of his energy with 
its substance as to be endued with the power of washing 
away all past sins and of generating in the soul a new and 
spiritual life — in a word, that it possessed the power of 
bavingthe soul* — Hence some deferred their baptism to 
the very last hour of life, that they might, after having 
given unrestrained indulgence to their lusts, wash 
away all their sins and die saints. Some thought that 
sins committed after baptism (as the ordinance could be 
performed upon them but once) would be damning, 
or nearly so; and of course put off baptism, except in 
cases of necessity, until the habits of virtue should be 
confirmed, and sufficient security against the danger 
of relapse into sin attained. Tertullian, who was in- 
deed a man of talents and learning but of an austere 
and whimsical cast of mind, patronized this idea with 
great ardour in reference to persons, both children and 
adults, whose religious instriiction was not particularly 
provided for in the church. Some delayed baptism till 
iiieir thirtieth yeav^ in imitation of the Saviour who 
was not baptized till that age — while others carried 
the matter of imitating Christ so far as to defer their 
baptism till they could make it practicable to be bap- 
tized at Jordan. On this pretence, and not to- receive 
thorough instruction as Mr. Jones erroneously states, 
k was that Constantine delayed his baptism uiitil death 

* Tertullian, Ambrose, and others of the Fathers, speak of the 
water with a degree uf rapturous extravagance. Thus Tertullian, 
Fceiix sa^ramentum aquae nostra, qum ablutis delictis pristinic 
csEcitatis, in vitam cternam liberamur — Supervenit enim statim 
Spiriuis de cslis, et aquis superest, sanctificanns eas de semeiipso, 
et ita sanctificatas vim sanctificandi conibibunt — Primus liquor quod 
viveret edidit, ne mirum sit in baptismo, si aqux animare move- 
runt. De baptismo cap. i. iii. iv. Ambrose says, O aqua qu^p sacra- 
mentum Christi esse meruisti: quse lavas omnia, nee lavaris! — Tu 
nomen prophetis et apostolis, tu nomen Salvatori dedisti, illi nob^s 
ccrli, illi salmundi, ilia fons vitx est. Ambros. in l.ucam. Lib. 10. 
■ -an. xci. 



17 

became inevitable, and was baptized of course by 
sprinkling.* — And lastly, a number put off their bap- 
tism until an opportunity might offer for being baptiz- 
ed by the hands of some favourite bishop. f 

But, after all, the facts relative to the baptism of 
such persons are not fairly represented by either Mr. 
Robinson or his eulogist, Mr. Jones. Concisely stated 
they are these — The father of Theodosius I. was not a 
baptized Christian himself when his son was born, and of 
course it ^vas not wonderful that Theodosius should 
not have been baptized in infancy. There is not the 
shadow of proof that Basil was baptized in adult age; 
but, on the contrary, there is evidence to induce a be- 
lief that he was baptized in infancy; and one fact i-s 
well known, namely, that he was both the advocate and 
practiser of infant baptism. With respect to Nectari- 
us, there is no proof whatever that he was born of 
Christian parents; nor is it known who or what they 
were. The parents of Chrysostom were, in all proba- 
bility, heathens at the time of his birth: his father died 
soon after he was born, and his mother was baptized 
after himself; consequently his baptism at adult age 
has as little to do in this controversy as that of ihe 
eunuch or Cornelius. The delay of baptism in the case 
of Gregory Nazianzen is easily accounted for, without 
supposing that it was not the custom to baptize infants 
in that period; for this had been before, as well as it 
was at his own time, the prevailing practice of the 
church. The true reason w^as, that in some parts of the 
church, and as appears from Gregory's writings, some 

* Speravit enim, se nancisci posse occasionem, ut in lordane (in 
quo baptizatus erat Christus) baptismum susciperet. Spirituali ex- 
inde Isetitia perfusus in lecto splendidissimo decumbens. Deo gra- 
{ias hisce verbis egit: Jam me vitam eternam sortitum liquet, jam 
me divinam consecutum lucem certum est. Kromayeri Ecclesia 
In Politia, p. 142. Vide Esebius De Vita Constantini, lib. 4. c. 62. 

t The reader will find all these different notions agitated in the 
Ufe of Constantine by Esusebius, Augustine's confession, and in tiffe 
writings erf Tertullian. Gregory Naxs^irzen, Basil, &c. 

C 



18 

Christians wcre,contrary to personal convicfio'n, in the ha- 
bit of neglecting and dela3'ing the baptism of their chil- 
dren. It isthus seen that the adult baptisms, of which Mr. 
Kobinson and Mr. Jones make so much, are not in 
point and have not in reality the least possible bearing 
on the question.^' 

But the Fathers, says Mr. Jones, render jwaD-jjrgyw to 
signify teachings which implies that they believed the 
doctrine of previous instruction. And what if they did? 
Corrupt practices in religion always generate corrupt 
interpretations. The translation Avhich they gave of 
Matt, xxviii. 19. no less than others, grew out of their 
superstitious views respecting baptism and the anti- 
scriptural system of a catechetical series of instruction, 
in order to the reception of baptism by candidates. 
Without derogating, therefore, from the honours of 
this hoary interpretation^ I must be permitted to pro- 
nounce it erroneous, even though it has been sanction- 
ed by the names of Gale and Robinson. The word 
jwot9-)jTg'uw, then, when governing an accusative, does 
not, nor can signify to teach^ but to disciple^ or to pro- 
selyte, riiis translation is not the offspring of necessi- 
ty — the child of private criticism, brought forward to 
serve a turn; but one that has obtained the sanction of 
the ablest biblical critics, and has passed into every 
recent version of the scriptures. f 

From this view of the subject it will be perceived 
that the translation adopted in my sermon, namely, 
Go^ disciple or proselyte all nations^ is no novel or up- 

* If the reader wishes to see Messrs. Robinson and Jones amply- 
refuted, let him consult Mr. Wall's History of Infant Baptisnrk, 
Pt. 2. ch. 3. 

t The word fji,«.^iriva-e(,ri.^ Matt, xxviii. 19. is thus rendered by the 
Ibllowing very learned and judicious critics; " Proselyte" Dodd- 
vido-e — " Make disa'/iies,'* Parkhurst and Wakefield — " Convert^'* 
I>yle and Campbell — ^^ jDisci/ile^" Guise and Scott — " Make disci- 
files, in all naticnsy" Wynne. See Dr. Campbeirs note on this 
text. 



1^ 

start thing — noi* yet a tnatter at war with Greek, as Mr. 
Jones would suggest. It will be remarked also that the 
Baptist writers, Gale, Robinson and the rest, act with 
strange inconsistence when they appeal to the testimony 
of the Fathers relative to immersion, ijjstriwtion pvGy'ious 
to baptism and the meaning of the above word; and yet 
when we avail ourselves of such testimony, not for 
opinion, but respecting a mere matter of fact, namely, 
the baptism of mjants, we are spurned for our weak- 
ness and credulity — and the Fathers — O yes, the Fa- 
thers are most illiberally reviled as a set of arrant fools, 
fanatics, and tyrants. Such censure is as illiberal as it 
is dangerous, since the testimony of the Fathers is the 
very base on which the authenticity of scripture rests. 
Many of their reasonings, I readily confess, were weak 
and their criticisms puerile; yet as witnesses of matters 
of fact, such as the customs and opinions prevalent in 
the church in their day, their integrity cannot be ques'- 
tioned without manifest danger. ^^^ 

It has been matter of rank offence, it seems, that I 
have brought so little incense to the shrine of the bap» 
tizing John — I called him a Jewish prophet. — This was 
my sin! Mr. Jones remonstrates — '' You say 'John was 
really nothing else but a Jewish prophet' — Pray sir 
who told you so?" p. 7. Malachi for one told me so, 
who calls him (ch. iv. 4.) '^ Elijah the Prophet," 
meaning, as an inspired interpreter has expounded it, 
that he should appear " in the spirit and power of E li- 
as," should resemble Elias in the turn and manner of 
his life, and be the same to the Jews in his day that 
Elias had been in his, a bold, active reformer and 
a prophet. Zacheus told me so, Luke i. 76. " Thou, 
child, shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest," 
Jesus Clirist told me so when he called hiiu '' a Pro- 
phet^ yea and more than a prophet.^'' Matt. xi. 9. He 
was a prophet, and preeminently such, on account ojf 
his proximity to the gospel dispensation and the near 
relation he bore to the Saviour as his precursor ancj 



^ 



messenger: yet when the blaze of evangelical day is to- 
form the ground of comparison, we see him who tow> 
ered above the prophets dwindle before the humblest 
minister of the new dispensation — "he thatisleast in the 
kingdom of heaven is greater than he.'' And he was a 
Jewish "proi^hct, because the whole legal economy was 
in full force, not only during, but subsequent to his 
ministry, and he with all his followers was subject to 
its institutions. See my sermon on Christian Baptism, 
2d Ed. Proofs and Illustrations, No. 1 and 2. 

Waving things of minor consequence, let us at- 
tend to Mr. Jones as a translator. " I render gv v^an 
in watery'' says Mr. Jones, *' because that preposition 
must mean in when it is used to point out a place." p. 
8. You render €v •o^axi in water! — Dr. Gill, whose 
judgment has infinitely more weight, had done so be- 
fore you and you had only to copy him. The transla- 
tion however, be it whose it may, is incapable of de- 
fence. The preposition is far from possessing any pow- 
er to designate the place where the transaction, namely, 
John's baptizing, took place; because that transaction 
happened in many places, and still it was tv J^otr* that he 
baptized. The power of gv in the description respects 
the material used in baptism, that is the water, as very 
clearly appears from the antithesis in this very verse; 
*' I indeed baptize you (gv Kt^cjL-vi) with water; he shall 
baptize you (gv 7rvgv/x»T; ^.y^ui aoci ttv^i) with the Holy 
Ghost and with fire." Matt, iii, 11. Here gv has pre- 
cisely the same application. But to what does it relate? 
The places v/here John baptized with water and Jesus 
w ith the Holy Ghost? Not at all; but to the thing used 
in these several baptisms, namely, the water of John 
and the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, This dissolves the 
bubble. Our common translation, with water and uith 
the Holy Ghost and with fire ^ (which, indeed, is great- 
ly preferable as being both more intelligible and more 
correct) has been supported by the almost unanimous 



t 



21 

judgment of the ablest biblical critics, as Hammond, 
Doddridge, Parkhurst, Scott, &c. But what is still 
better, it is supported by fact, the greatest and best of 
all interpreters. The above cited prediction was lite- 
rally fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when the disci- 
ples were literally baptized with the Holy Ghost and 
with fire by a risen Saviour. But how were they bap- 
tized? By being dipped in the Holy Ghost? dipped in 
fire? No, the reverse of this. The sacred historian de- 
clares the Holy Ghost was poured out and shed, forth 
upon them; and that cloven tongues like as of fire sat 
upon them: this was the baptism of fire, that of the 
Holy Ghost. Such is the fact, but how unlike the batk 
which the absurd version of Mr. Jones would prepare 
for the immersion of these disciples. I know the gen- 
tleman's subterfuge; like Mr. Booth and Thomas El- 
wood his honest Quaker, he resorts to the thing which 
on that occasion filled the house to furnish the means 
of immersion. But to avoid the palpable and humili- 
ating absurdity of resting the idea upon the sound 
filling the house, Mr. Jones adds a new circumstance 
to the history of the fact, namely, that it was the power 
of the Holy Ghost that filled the house. " This sound," 
says he, ^' had something that made it, and that was 
the power of the Holy Ghost, (wVtts^) like as a mighty 
rushing wind, and that is what filled all the house. 
The pronoun it is not in the Greek; and the words 
read as well, * and filled all the house.' Now if the 
house was filled, and they were in the house, surround- 
ed with the influence of the Holy Ghost, they were 
immersed in him,'''* Answer to Edwards, p. 151. When 
people are permitted to fabricate facts it is easy to prove 
any thing; yet we are not disposed to allow Mr. Jones 
this dangerous license, however useful it might be to 
his hypothesis; but will confine him rigidly to the facts 
as detailed by the pen of inspiration. Reading the pas- 
sage, as he wishes it, gives no new idea, nor the kast 
intimatioji that the power of the Holy Ghost filled all 



22 

the Iwus^e. It would run thus; ^^ And suddenly thcj^t^ 
came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind 
and filled all the house." Now what came from heavei\P 
what filled all the house? " A sound," says the text — 
*' The power of the Holy Ghost," says Mr. Jones! The- 
contradiction is palpable. Still then, in defiance of cri- 
ticism, it was a sound which filled all the house. This 
sound, however solemn, w^as not the Holy Spirit, nor 
yet his baptizing influence, but the awe inspiring mo- 
nitor of his approaching majesty. Thus when God was 
about to visit Elijah *^ there was a great and strong 
wind which rent the mountains and brake in pieces the 
rocks, but the Lord was not in tlie wind; and after the 
wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earth- 
quake." Just so when the sound came from heaven and 
filled all the house, the Spirit was not in the sound. 
As yet the disciples were not baptized with the Holy 
Ghost and with fire; that event is described in the suc- 
ceeding verses. '' And there appeared unto them cloven 
tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them — 
and they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and began 
to speak with tongues." Acts ii. 2 — 4. That this, 
not the previous sound, constitutes the fact of their 
baptism appears incontrovertibly clear from the same 
event having taken place, on another occasion, with- 
out the accompaniment of the sound from heaven. It 
haj)pened in the house of Cornelius when " the Holy 
Ghost j^// on all who heard the word" — when '' on the 
Gentiles also, was poured out the gift of the Holy 
Ghost;" and they were heard to " speak with tongues 
and magnify God.''^ "This Jaili?ig upon, this pouring out 
upon, St. Peter calls in express terms a baptism, and 
says moreover, that it, no less than the baptism of tJie 
Holy Ghost at Pentecost, w^as a fulfilment of the pro- 
pliecy uttered by John the baptizer, and after him by 
Jesus Christ. '' And as I began to speak the Holy 
Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 
Then remembered I the word of the Lord^, how tl^at he 



•^i»- 



sai3, John indeed baptized with water; but ye $hall 

BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HoLY GhOST." ActS X. 44 

— 46. and xi. 15, 16. With these facts before him let 
the reader recala previous remark of Mr. Jones, wheii' 
he says, *' It has been my opinion for some years that 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost was exterval; and that 
in the 4th verse, ' filled with the Holy Ghost,' was 
something superior and distinct from the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost," p. 150. and he will have a fair specimen of 
the folly and grossness to which false theory can urge 
the human mind. Notliing can exceed in weakness, con- 
trariety to fact, and grossness of idea, this comment of 
Mr. Jones on the facts mentioned in Acts ii. The idea of 
the Holy Ghost coming down as a thin substance, filling 
all the house, and thus forming a bath^^ deep and large, 
so that the disciples were immersed in it, and thus 
received an external baptism^ is as coarse and forbid-, 
ing, as it is derogatory to the Good Spirit. The Holy 
Ghost transformed to a material substance and acting 
externally Vi^ow the bodies of the disciples! What e,xti*a- 
vagance! 

But truth wipes away such cobwebs a* a single 
brush. St. Peter, who says that the Holy Gho^t felt 
upon^ that is baptized^ Cornelius and his friends as he 
did himself and the others at the beginnings i. e. on 
the memorable morning of Pentecost. This identifies 
the baptism of the apostles at Pentecost and of Corne- 
lius and his company, and puts it beyond doubt that 
the " sound from heaven" had nothing to do with the 
baptism on the first occasion — besides, die effects of 
the baptisms in both cases being the same, serve also 
to identify them, for it is said of both parties that be- 
ing thus baptized they spake -with tongues and glorifi- 
ed God, 

But alio whig Baptist writers all they fancy, or plead 
'for, in the present case, still the the thing, whatever it 
was, which came down from^heaven upon the house and 
filled it^. would fail to an^wei:' their views, of baptizing. 



24 

For this was baptism by pouring or affusion^ aiid (5f 
course on the principlesof baptists, wo baptism — Immer- 
sion of the whole body, and nothing else will pass with 
them for a real and proper baptism. 

Mr. Jones endeavours to prove that the legal dispen- 
sation ended when John began his ministry. Luke xvi. 
16. " The law and the prophets were until John: since that 
time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man 
presseth into it." p. 8. But how does this text prove the 
point for which it is adduced? The law and the prophets 
were untilJohn. This, Mr. Jones thinks, will prove that 
the law or legal dispensation ended when John was sent to " 
baptize; and if it does, will it not, by a like necessity of 
inference, prove also that the prophets ended too when 
John was sent to baptize? The last inference is mani- 
festly absurd, and the first, resting on the same evi- 
dence, must be equally so. Fact also and plain scrip- 
ture show its falsehood, and since John and his fol- 
lowers obeyed the law, and Christ with his disciples 
was subject to the law in all its requirements down to 
the time of his sufferings — nay more, that he positively 
enjoined it on others to conform to its demands. See 
Matt, xxiii. 2, 3. Mark i. 44. Luke v. 14. 

'* The law and the prophets were until John" — This 
observation is precisely similar to one recorded by 
Matthew, '' for the prophets and the law prophesied 
until John." the meaning of which is that the prophets 
and the law were the lights given for the illumination of 
the world till John rose to minister a clearer light and 
give fuller information on points already touched by 
the prophets and the law; yet John was without any 
authority to supercede or annul either the one or the 
other. " Since that the kingdom of heaven is preach- 
ed and every man passeth into it" — that is, since the 
period of John's commencing his ministry, the king- 
dom of Christ is preached with increased light and 
energy and the happy consequence ha^ been th^t 



25 

greater attention is paid to the ministers of religion and 
better success attends their message. 

To make the rise of the evangelical dispensation 
synchronize with the baptism of John grossly contra- 
dicts the general impression of scripture fact. For if 
the gospel dispensation was set up Avhen John began 
to baptize, it may be asked how came John himself to 
preach just the contrary, saying ^' the kingdom of 
heaven is at hand?" or how did it happen that Jesus 
Christ delivered the very same message? or why did it 
come to pass that the Saviour commissioned his own 
disciples to preach '^ The kingdom of heaven is at 
hand?" and the seventy to proclaim just that much and 
no more— ^" The kingdom of God is come nigh unto 
you?" In a word, this violent position gives the lie to 
the whole series of the evangelical story. 

Mr. Jones is quite shocked at my assertions respect- 
ing the baptism of Christ, and thinks they are such as 
demonstrate my irreverence for the Son of God. p. 11. 
But what does the gentleman oppose to the idea of 
Christ's baptism by John being done in obedience to 
law and for his consecration to office? Nothing, surely, 
remarkable either for its intelligence or strength. He 
says it was not John but God that consecrated Jesus 
a priest. But where is his proof that John did not con- 
secrate Jesus? He offers none— I assert that both God 
and John consecrated the blessed Saviour — John wash- 
ed him with water as Moses did Aaron, and the great 
God anointed him, immediately afterwards, xvith the 
Holy Ghost and "With power, saying, ^^Thou art my Son, 
this day have I begotten thee." Comp. Matt. iii. 13 — 
17. Mark i. 10, 11. Acts x. 38. Heb. v. 1—5. See this 
subject more largely treated in my Sermon, 2d Ed. p. 
7, 8. and Proofs and Illustrations No, % 

* As to Mark. i. I. " The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ 
the Son of God" is simply the title prefixed to the book, expres- 
sing only the subject in it, aud has no bearing whatever on the 
auestion. 

D 



26 

Mr. Jones attempts here, as he often does, to operate 
on the popularity of my sermon by treating this opi- 
nion as a whim of my own, and too extravagant to be 
either asserted or believed by any one else. These in- 
sinuations recoil upon himself and demonstrate how 
httle he has read, as several authors of eminence have 
explained Matt. iii. 15. '' Thus it hecometh us to fulfil 
all righteousness,'^'' in the same manner that I have done. 
See Jenning's Jewish Antiquities, vol. i. 204. Cowles* 
Sermons on Infant Baptism, p. 71. 

The learned gentleman, after endeavouring to prop the 
falling notion of John's baptism and the Christian bap- 
tism being the same and again referring me to his pam- 
phlet for ^full investigation of the subject, Ytvcvoi\^\x?it^ 
thus: '' Why do you call John's baptism that ofrepent- 
ance?'''' p. 14, 15. I do so because John spoke of it in the 
same style — ^'' I indeed baptize you with water unto 
repentance;'' — because St. Luke in his gospel ex- 
pressly calls it THE BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE;" 

— and because St. Paul has more than once 
pronounced it '' the baptism of repentance." 
Matt. iii. 11. Luke iii. 3. Acts xiii. 24 and 19. 
Here, sir, is a threefold cord, which mocks your feeble 
attempt to break it. In vain do you persuade the world 
that Jesus received John's baptism. It was a baptism 
leading to and symbolizing repentance; an outward pu- 
rification by water indicative of that moral preparation 
of soul and of life necessary to the Jews on the approach 
of the kingdom of Christ. Now this being the fact, 
let the candid inquirer after truth ask himself whe- 
ther he can believe it possible that Jesus " who did no 
sin," underwent such a baptism! What, the spotless 
Saviour received a baptism requiring repentance! 
What, baptized unto repentance when without sin! 
Impossible, absurd! Mr. Jones, who can publish it to 
the world that Jesus was really the subject of John's 
baptism, speaks but awkwardly to me about irrever- 
ence for th€ Son of God, unblushing ignorance and act- 



27 

i7ig tmbecoming the mmistenal character^ when a foct 
like this would reflect deep dishonour on the Son of 
God and tear up by the very roots the religion he has 
founded in the earth. No, the baptism of Jesus was 
THE BAPTISM OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, uot of repent- 
ance. He was made under the law, not under the min- 
istry of John, erroneously said to be the commence- 
ment of the gospel dispensation. He came to fulfil the 
law — to fulfil all righteousness . It was God's law, not 
that of men; and Christ's obedience put honour upon 
it. If any thing can exceed the absurdity of the doc- 
trine thus refuted, it is that of confounding John's 
baptism with the Christian baptism. Never were two 
things more remarkably discriminated, in doctrine and 
fact, than are these in the New Testament: and yet we 
see people plead for their identity as ardently, as perti- 
naciously as if the controversy involved some cardinal 
point of Christianity. But no wonder; it is the life's- 
blood of their system for which they contend. — They 
are to be pardoned. 

In reference to these subjects Mr. Jones does me 
the honour of considering me as an original. They are 
my oivHy he remarks; they are -worthy of me: no man 
ever presumed to say so before. "^ 

This sorry irony is designed to reproach these doc- 
trines as being the whimsies of an obscure individual 
and therefore unworthy of general estimation and credit. 
Buried in the forests of the Great Valley of the Missi- 
sippi, and remote from the scene of illumination, I can 
originate nothing. These things have their use; and no 
doubt with a certain sort of readers will be thought 
wonderful. But before they celebrate a triumph, let 
me inform them and the sapient Mr. Jones, that I am 
so far from inventing these doctrines that I learned them 
about sixteen years ago by reading the works of Matthew, 
Luke, and Paul, with other inspired writers. Yes, from 

* See page 9, 10, 11. 



^8 

them I took these very obfioxious and irreverent doc* 
triiies, as they are called, and that too at a time when 
my soul hung with anxious solicitude on the question^ 
what ?V Christian baptism? Some years after this I 
found that many authors, of great eminence for learn- 
ing and piety, had received the same views of the sub- 
ject I had done, as I successively became acquainted 
with the writings of Jennings, WJlitby, Clarke, Henry, 
Pyle, Scott, Cowles, Miller, Pirie, and several others* 
More than this, I have recently observed that most of 
the Fathers, as Tertullian, Origen, and Basil, had very 
clearly distinguished the Christian baptism from the 
l^aptism of John! — These facts are worthy of notice, 
as they form a correct scale for estimating the precise 
ratio of Mr. Jones' information, as wxU as furnish me 
A^ith an honourable relief from the condemnation of be- 
ing an originaL 

The learned gentleman thinks there is u capital er- 
rar among us in discussing the mode of baptism; name- 
ly, ^nc///^^•ya^//^ of lexicographers and the translation 
of the Holy Scriptures, p. 15. As to the first branch 
of the charge, 1 remark, that lexicographers are but 
men, and may be wrong; consequently they are not 
to be implicitly followed. That many of them, regard- 
ing rather Jewish customs and the practice of the 
church after she had corrupted the mode of baptism as 
well as other rites than either the use of the word in 
scripture or the Greek idiom, have improperly trans- 
lated the word ^ot^-n-vilyi as meaning exclusively to dip^ 
plunge^ or iinmerse, we believe and say; nay more than 
this, we prove by positive examples and facts* But do 
all lexicographers and critics give this exclusive inter- 
pretation? So Mr. Jones with his usual candor would 
insinuate; but this in reality is not the fact. Many wri- 
tcrs of great literary eminence have decided differently; 
that the word does not necessarily mean to immerse^ 
but to wash^ and even to sprinkle. 

Such are Casaubon, Craddock, Leigh, Pool, Van 



Z9 

Mustriclit, Grotius, Guise, Brown, Scott, and Schleus- 
ner, with a number more, justly celebrated for biblical 
erudition. With these authors we entirely agree; and 
can therefore with truth declare, that Mr. Jones does 
not state the fact when he says, we find fault with lexi- 
cographers, and that writers of this discription are on 
the side of immersion. 

It is not denied, however, that we differ from 
some lexicographers and critics in explaining this 
word and others of the same connection. 

For some reason, and most probably from the fact cf 
immersion's having formerly been the most popular 
mode of baptizing in the church of England, a num- 
ber of writers, distingushed for literature in that estab- 
lishment, ■ have decided that the meaning of the word 
!2)cc7rri^ca is to chp^ or plunge. Of this sort are Burnet^ 
Keach, Whitby, and others. 

These authors have been copied by some late \rri 
ters, such as Campbell and M^Night, without due ex-^ 
umination. Thus, for instance, Dr. Campbell asserts 
** the word ^o(,7m^(a^ both in sacred authors and in 
classical, signifies to dip, to plunge^ to hnmerse;^ and 
was rendered in Tertullian, the Latin Fathers, tingere., 
the term used for dying cloth, which was by immer- 
s*ion." And in another place he remarks; ^' The He- 
brew 7 no perfectly corresponds to the Greek ^xtttm 
and /3o47rT<^<w, which are synonimous, and is always ren- 
dered by one or other of them in the Septuagint."* 
That Dr. Campbell was mistaken will be manifest 
from the subjoined examination of the sense in which 
these words are used in the original Scriptures and 
the Septuagint. The Hebrew 7 2D is found, as I believe, 
in the following texts only; Gen, xxxvii. 31, Exod. 
xii, 22. Lev. iv. 6, 17. ix. 9. xiv, 6, 16, 51. Numb. 
.xix. 18. Deut. xxxiii. 24, Josh. iii. 15. Ruth ii, 14. 

* See Campbell's Notes en Matt, iil 1 1. and Mark vii, 4, 



ao 

I Sam, xiv. 27. 2 Kings v. 14. viii. 15. Job. ix. 31. 
Ezek. xxiii. 15. 

Now this Hebrew word in the very first of the fore- 
going texts, contrary to what Dr. Campbell asserts, 
IS not m the Septuagint rendered either by /B^tttw or 
^oLTTTi^ia^ but by^oAuva>,a word which does not common- 
ly, much less necessarily, signify to plunge^ or dip^ but 
to sm€ai\ to pollute^ or defile. See Rev. lii. 4. xiv. 4. 

And this is evidently the rendering here: — '' And 
(1 7IID* gpoAuvav) they smeared or died the coat with the 
blood." Not only the word of the origmal, but the cir- 
cumstances of the fact, show dipping to have been 
impracticable; for few, I apprehend, will believe it 
probable or even possible that Joseph's many coloured 
coat could have been plunged into or dipped all over 
in a kid's blood spilt on the ground in the field. 

In all the other passages the Hebrew word is translated 
by ^^TTTw in the Septuagint, except 2 Kings v. 14. 
where the word ^acimljM is used. Let us see in what 
sense the words are employed by the sacred writers in 
some of the rest. In Exod. xii. 22. Lev. iv. 6, 17 — 
ix, 9. and Numb. xix. 18. it was divinely required 
that a hyssop branch should be dipped in the blood or 
waters of purification, and that the priest's finger should 
be dipped m the blood of the victim; yet no person 
can think that either the hyssop branch or the priest's 
finger was plunged all over in the water or blood. An- 
other ceremonial statute was that ^' the priest should take 
some o?7and pour it into the palm of his own left hand, 
and dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left 
hand," &c. Lev. xiv. 15 — 17. Here again the entire 
immersion of the priest's finger was impossible. 

Lev. xiv. 6, 51. '^ As fi r the living bird, he shall take 
it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, 
and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of 
the bird that was killed over the running water." 
Here also entire dipping was in the very nature of 



31 

thhigs, utterly impracticable; as all must believe that the 
whole mass of blood belonging to one bird, could it 
have been drawn out and collected in a suitable ves- 
sel, would have been quite insufficient for the entire 
immersion of its fellow bird, much more so for the 
cedar wood, the scarlet and the hyssop. 

Josh. iii. 15. " And the feet of the priests that bare 
the ark (iS^Di i^o(,(py](rocv) were dipped in the brim of 
the water." In this passage we are not to understand 
that the feet of the priests were entirely covered with 
water; for in reference to the same fact it is distinctly 
stated, in the thirteenth verse of the same chapter, that 
the soles of their feet only were wet with the waters of 
Jordan, 

In Ezek. xxiii. 15. the deep stained tiaras of the ima- 
ges of the Chaldeans j&(3z/r^r«z/<?<i on the wall with Vermil- 
lion are described by the words Heb. D^blllD LXX 
TToi^oc^ooTrra,^ rendered in our translation ''dyed attire:'''' 
an instance which positively precludes the very idea 
of dipping; for these deep coloured turbans were 
thrown on the wall with a pencil or brush. 

The signification of the word SlD,then, as suggested by 
the previous collation of passages, signifies to smear ^ to 
tinge ^ or wet with some liquid: and this is the very sense 
put upon it by the Vulgate, Pagninus, Tremelius, Bux- 
torf,and Tromius; and constitutes the primary and most 
proper signification of ^otTTTai; which does not originally 
and primitively signifiy to immerse, but comes to take 
-that as a secondary meaning from the circumstance of 
materials being sometimes dipped when they are dyed. 

InPsalmslxviii.23.''Thatthy foot (LXX 3^(p^) may 
he dipped in the blood of thine enemies." The Hebrew 
word corresponding with ^ctirrca is VH/tS, which signi- 
fies to strike, wound, or imbue deeply; and one circum- 
stance involved in the description, namely, that the 
tongues of the dogs were to be imbued with the blood 
of the fallen, as well as the foot of the victorious war- 
rior, shows very clearly that entire iipmersion is not 



32 

the idea contained in the passage, as in doing this a 
part of the tongue only could have been dipped. 

This word occurs twice more in the Septuagint; 
namely, in Dan. iv. 33. and v. 21. where it is said of 
Nebuchadnezzar, *^ his body (?|3a(p>j) was wet with 
the due of heaven." The corresponding Chaldaic word 
in these passages is yi^, which always denotes to 
painty to tinge^ to xvet, to moisten, to imbue, but never 
to dip, or to plunge. Thus it is rendered by Buxtorf, 
Parkhurst, and others. And besides the circumstances 
of the fact show that though the body of this monarch 
was wet entirely with the falling dew, yet it Avas 
done not by dipping but by a gentle and even gradual 
affusion. 

It is in the same sense that the New Testament wri- 
ters use the word ^a^nrw, I will only produce a single 
instance, though several others are equally accessible 
to every person at all acquainted with biblical learning. 
It is Rev. xix. 13. when Tp^jiTtov /3g3*jt>tevov Mi^ocn signu 
lies, " a vesture stained or sprinkled with blood," and 
so it ought to have been rendered. 

This is the translation of Schleusner, Vestis tincta 
sanguine, and of Montanus, Vestimentum tinctum san- 
guine'—'''' a vesture stained with blood." The Vulgate 
or Jerome's translation, renders this passage thus, Et 
vestitus ei^at veste aspersa sanguine; *^ and he was 
clothed in a g^rxw^nt sprinkled zvith blood.^^ 

The correctness of this translation will be obvious 
to every person, who will compare the prediction, of 
which this is a part, with that in Isaiah (Ixiii. 1—5.) 
which relates to the same fact in prophetic history, 
namely, the sanguinary and tremendous slaughter of 
Antichrist and his army in the vale of Megiddo by 
the avenging Redeemer, who is there represented 
fjs saying, " their blood shall be sprinkled upon my 
garments and I will stain all my raiment*"— Indeed the 

* Sc.e Faber's Gen. Con. View of Prophecies, p. 153— .15.^. 



53 

circumstances thrown into the description show entire 
immersion not to be the idea, in as much as the person 
who treads a wine-press never dips entirely and at 
once the vesture he wears, but gradually and even par- 
tially stains it with the blood of the grape. In most, if 
not all the other passages of the New Testament where 
j^ccTTTu) occurs, it retains its primitive sense, to stain, to 
steep, or to i?nbue.^ It is not denied that the word does 
mean also to dip, or immerse; but then it is to be un- 
derstood that this is its secondary, not its primary 
meaning, acquired from the circumstance of dipping 
things ill order to dye them. 

The word /ixTm^^cj takes the same signification with 
its radical /BaTrrw, but is never used in its primitive 
sense in the Greek scriptures, unless, perhaps, it 
should be the baptism of blood mentioned in Matt. xx. 
22. Luke xii. 50., which was a staining with blood 
in the way of affusion, and took place literally in the 
case of Christ and his disciples shedding and being 
stained with their own blood while they delivered their 
testimony. The Latin Fathers are fond of applying 
tbese texts in the sense of a literal baptism with blood. 
Thus TertuUian; De Baptismo c. 10. " Est quidem no- 
bis etiam secundum lavacrum unum et ipsum, san- 
guinis scilicit: De quo Dominus, Habeo, inquit, bap- 
tismo tingui, quum jam tinctus fuisset. Venerat enim 
per aquam et per sanguinem, sicut Joannes scripsit, ut 
aqua tingueretur et sanguine glorificaretur. Proinde 
ut nos faceret aqua vocatos, sanguine electos; et hos du-^ 
OS baptismos de vulnereperfossilaterisemisset." This 
word occurs but twice in the Septuagint, namely, in 
2 Kings V. 14. and Is. xxi. 4. 

* It must be apparent, I think, to the careful and unprejudiced 
inquirer, who reads our translation, that those who made it did not 
intend to convey the idea of entire immersion by the word di/i, in 
every instance where it is used; but of dtaining^ defiling ^ imbite" 
Ins^^ &c, 

E 



34 

In the first of these, where it is said of Naaman, *' He 
clipped {i^xTrrKfocTo) himself seven times in Jordan," it 
is used interchangeably with Ko^^oc^i^ca, which is often 
synonimous with loocvoo, to sprinkle, and signifies to 
purify, as will appear by the following examples. Ps. 
li. Purge (LXX. '?o(,vri7g,spri?ikIe) me with hyssop and 
(LXX. x,AB-u^i(r^vi(roiAoci) I shall be clean,^'' Ezek. " Then 
(LXX. ^'^vw) / will sprinkle clean water upon you 
and (LXX. yLcc^oL^i(T^yi(ri<T^i) ye shall be clean."^ When 
this known application of the word is understood, and 
with it, that in case of purification for leprosy seven 
sprinklings were practised under the law, a doubt, it 
is presumed, need not remain whether the seven bap- 
tisms of the leprous Syrian were seven aspersions of 
sprinklings. Lev. xiv. 7. 

The passage from Isaiah, *^ fearfulness [^xttti^h] af- 
frighted me," is figurative, and determines nothing 
certainly concerning the meaning of the word. It is 
employed, however, in that place to translate the 
Hebrew word ny^, which signifies to startle, ^ffi'^ght, 
or perturb, as one is started by the unexpected dash- 
ing, or pouring of water upon the face or naked skin. 

BotTTTi^w is twice used in the Apocryphal scriptures, 
which being original Greek and very ancient are 
weighty authority as to Jewish customs and the man- 
ner of using the word. 

It is said of Judith that getting up in the night she 
went out into the valley of Bethulia (y^xt e/3<x7rT/^gTo ev 
T>j TTx^i/jL^oKyj Itt} Tjjf 'jTYjyyig Tov v^xroq) '' and baptized 
at a well of water in or by the camp."t The practice 

* With the texts above cited let the reader consult John ii. 6 
iii. 25. with Matt. xv. 2, 20. Mark vii. 4. and Luke xi. 38. Eph. v, 
2.!i. Lev. XV. 12. in the Greek scriptures, with Schleusner, Park- 
liLirst, and Hammond on the word, and he will see that Kit^x^it,<>) is 
used as the synonime of /3tf67rT«^&>. and means baptize ?lI\A jiunfy. 

t Jiidith. xii. 7. The preposition £t<, as will be explained more 
fully afterwards, is properly rendered at — It is entirely gratuitous 
lo suppose that Judith dipped herself all over in a spring or well in 



35 

oi washing the hands before praying was not only 
common among the Jews, as Clemens of Alexandria 
informs us, but so superstitiously admired, that it was 
often observed in the night and even in bed. It was a 
washing of this sort, as Lomier justly remarks, which 
that intrepid female practised in the fact of her midnight 
baptism and prayer. 

Under the Levitical law, when a person had touclied 
a dead body, the rule in common cases was this; " He 
shall purify himself \y\\\\ it (the water of seperation;) 
and on the seventh day he shall be clean." But failing 
to observe this rule, the penalty was, " that soul shall 
be cut oft* from Israel, because the water of separa- 
tion was not sprinkled upon him." Numb. xix. 11 — 
13. Now this purification by sprinkling is, in Eccle- 
siasticus, chap, xxxiv. v. 25., called a baptism (o /3c67r- 
ri^ofjLivog otTTo vgjc^ov) ''He that baptizeth himself after 
touching a dead body ^ if he touch it again what availeth(Tw 
AouT^w) the baptism,^"^ The word is thus rendered by! 
Pagninus [ablutus) '' purified," and the act described 
by [ablutio) '' ablution," a phraseology denoting a spe- 
cies of washing in which there is no dipping. 

In the New Testament it is frequently used in the 
same sense, and indeed seldom in aii)^ other. It is aJ 
most always taken to denote purification; as when it 
is applied to John's baptism and the baptism ui the 
Spirit and of fire as prefigured by it. In p^oof of this 
compare Matt. iii. 5, John ii. 6. and iii. 23 — 26. 

That the baptism of John is the purifying alluded 
to in the last passages here cited has been advocated by 
some writers of great eminence, particularly Schleus- 
ner. In explaining the word KocB-d^KTfxog he says, 
'' Sense 3. Baptism: John iii. 25. m^i Ka^B-oc^ic-fAov, Let it 
be remarked the inquiry was, whether Christ could 

the night and in or near the camp. Indeed, that she baptized by 
immersion is very improbable, no less from the circumstance ac- 
companying the fact, than from the usages of the Jews. VjcIq 
Lomieri De Vet. Gent. Syntag. c. 16. et aliis. 



baptize by his own authority, and whether the baptism 
instituted by him were more excellent than the bap- 
tism of John, Comp. v. 23. and 26."* And Dr.^Camp- 
bell, at the expense of his own views, remarks in his 
note on the same passage " About purification Tn^t 
Y.(x.^oL^i<TiAov: that is as appears from the sequel about 
baptisms and other legal ablutions." 

These washings or baptisms of purification were 
various, and often performed otherwise than by im- 
mersion, as will be manifest by comparing the sub- 
joined passages. 1 Kings iii. 11. John ii. 6. Luke xi. 
SS^ 39. and by recollecting the clear expression of 
the history of oriental usages, so obviously in favour of 
this idea.* Some passages in which ^xTrn^ca occurs 
have already been explained; others wil} be treated in 
their proper place, and consequently need not be re- 
marked on here. 

After going into a patient and, as I would hope, a can- 
did examination of all the passages in the Greek scrip- 
tures where this word is to be found, as well as into 

!>e use of words which are often employed as synoni- 

\ and at the same time availing myself of all the 

^ history and philological reading w ithin my 

•' v:? come to this conclusion, that it is never but 
New Testament used in its primitive sense 
t or imbue^ that it never occurs in its se- 

coi 'o dip, or plunge all over in water, and 

that V 'oduced by the inspired writers or 

their G: ^ ^rs it is always in a sacred sense, 

describing • ^ ; tUe external application of water in 
token of inwa. a purity, or the shedding down of the 
Holy Spirit upon the soul in order to its regeneration 

* K«^flfg«r^()< — 3. Baptism. John iii. 25. -rf^< KuB-a^tTuo-j. Scil. 
An Chrisius. jure suo bapiizare possit, et an baptismus ab eo insti- 
tus, prestantior sit Johannis baptisino, Coil. v. 23 et 26, Schieus- 
ner. Lex. Gr. Lat. in N. Test. 

* See this subject treated more at lars^e in my Sermon on 
Christian Baptism, 2d. Ed. p. 57 — 63. — Pioofs and Illustrations No. 
I. III. IV. V. 



37 

and sanctification. It is pleasing to find this result of 
my inquiries supported by that incomparable biblical 
critic, Schleusner, who thus expounds the word " BA?- 
TlZii — Is. Properly to immerse and dye^ to dip into 
water. ^"^ " In this sense, indeed, it is never used in 
the New Testament^ but it is so used w^ith some fre- 
quency in Greek authors." — *' As it is not unfrequent 
to immerse and dip something in order to wash it; 
Sense 2. the word signifies to purify, to wash general- 
ly, to cleanse with water. Thus it is used in the New 
Testament, Mark vii. 4. K,a4< oltvq ayo^ocg zclm ^xTrn^ovrxi 
(in quibusdam. Cod. '^ccvri^ovron) ova icBrioc-oci, ** and 
from the markets they do not eat, unless they baptize^'' 
(in some copies sprinkle) — that is, and such things 
as have been bought in the market they do not eat, 
unless they shall have been first washed and purified. 

Luke Xi. 38. on OV TT^QTOV il^X7rTi(rB-yj T^^^Q TCU (X^i90V^ 

" that Jesus had not washed himself before dinner." 

From the discussion thus made it must appear, I 
conceive, that Dr. Campbell had never thoroughly ex- 
amined m what sense this word is used in the sacred 
^vritings; and consequently w^hen he asserts that " l^oiTr- 
rt^itv, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies 
to dip, to plunge, to i?n?7ierse, and was rendered by I'er- 
tuUian, the oldest of the Latin Fathers, by tingere, a 
w^ord used for dying cloth, which was by immersion," 
there is really no truth in the assertion. The word 
seldom, and perhaps never, signifies to dip in scripture, 
Tertullian, indeed, translates it by tingere; but then 
this word does not mean to immerse only, for that Fa- 
ther, as we have seen in the quotation made above, and 
as will abundantly appear in the proposed Review, 
frequently uses the word to describe baptism by 
sprinkling. 

Dr. Campbell is not less palpably mistaken when he 
declares that ^octttco and ^oLTm^ca are synonimous, and 
that they are the words which are used by the Septu- 
agint to translate the corresponding word bj2D. In 



38 

ihcir primary sense to tinge, to stain, to imbue, I indeed 
believe them to be synonimous; but it will be found, 
I presume, that there is a clearly marked distinction as 
to their application in scripture.^ For there it never 
happens, one or two instances excepted, that (^ocTrri^ca 
is used in its original sense; but is taken uniformly to 
express some religious application of water or the in- 
ternal benefits represented by that symbol: whereas 
f^xTTTC} is invariably used in its original sense, and ne- 
ver to express any religious washing or purification. 
If Dr. Campbell, a man of great critical acumen and 
unquestionable merit as a philological scholar, was thus 
palpably mistaken in his exposition of the meaning of 
these words, I ask whether it should be deemed strange 
that others equally distinguished should be mistaken 
also; and whether it be not indispensable that we should 
examine for ourselves, and not take upon trust the, 
mere dixit of any man? 

In explaining this word lexicographers are not 
agreed among themselves, and this being the case I 
for one am resolved not to trust them as infallible 
guides. There is a very commonly prevailing fallacy 
on this subject, namely, that those critics who say the 
words in controversy mean to immerse and nothing 
else, are in judgment entirely accordant with the Bap- 
tist authors. But this is not true: all these critics, to a 
man, believe that dipping a part of the body is a bap- 
tism: the Baptist writers, on the contrary, do univer- 
sallv contend that nothing can be a baptism short of 
dipping the whole body under water. In proof of this 
assertion I appeal not only to the writings of both par- 

* That T have correctly stated tlie primary meaning of the word 
l^x'TTTa will appear by consuking some of the ablest critics and lex- 
icoL^ruphers, as well as from the examples above collated. The 
Lexicon in the Antwerp Polyii:lot renders the word thus, tingo,lavo, 
coloro.immergo. Tromius, tin:^'o^ nirrgo. Lex. Or. Lat. Consto- 
nini tingo, lavo, coloro, immergo. I have not allowed myself to 
travel out of the limits of scripture in these inquiries; but 
had I done so, the very same results in iixing the sense of the words 
would have taken place. 



lies, but to tliis particular fact, that iii expounding 
Mark vii. 4. Whitby, Campbell, Parkhurst and others 
on the same side, say that the baptism there spoken of 
was dipping the hands only; while Dr. Gill and all the 
Baptist authors strenuously insist that it was the im- 
mersion of the whole body. After all the parade of cri- 
ticism made by Baptists on this question then, they 
and the critics are not agreed, but directly and posi- 
tively opposed. 

This general remark, also, is obviously suggested 
by the detailed view \^^hich has just been given of the 
scriptural use of these words; that if Baptists contend 
for the primary sense of the word ^oLir-n^o)^ to dip or to 
plunge is not that meanings but to stam^ colour or dye: 
consequently the argument taken from the original 
signification cannot answer the purpose for which it 
is employed. 

The plea of primary meaning, therefore, can be no 
longer useful to the Baptist hypothesis; yet I am dis- 
posed to think there is some truth in the idea. The 
fact of washing persons in the name of the Trinity is 
not only symbolical of moral cleansing by the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost, but also in a figurative sense refers to 
the original \^t2Lo{ staining or marking; in as much as 
they who receive baptism, the initiating or designating 
rite of Christianity, are marked out with a new tincture 
or colour, or in other words, take a new impression 
or character. Such is the allusion Rev. vii. 3. and xiv. 
1. where the servants of God are said to be sealed and 
to have his name written i?i their foreheads. And it 
was in this view that the Latin Fathers were so fond of 
using the word tingo to describe baptism, and of call- 
ing the baptized Tincti, and sometimes still more 
plainly Sigillo Cirri sti signati, ** marked with the seal 
of Christ." This sense is admitted by Mr. Robinson 
when he says, John's baptizing persons ''conferred a 
character, a moral hue, as dyers by dipping in a vat set 
a tincture or colour. Hence John is called, by early 



40 

Latins, Johannes Tinctor^ the exact Latin of loawjj? 

3a7rT/fvj , John the Baptist.''^ Hist, of Baptism, p. 6. 

1 allow the interpretation of baptism conferring a mo- 
ral hue; but I deny, and I am supported in doing so by 
the foregoing induction, that dipping is at all necessary 
to the idea of staining or marking, and that Johannes 
Tinctor is the exact Latin of loavv*^? o jSotTTTif);^, but Jo- 
hannes BAPTiZATOR, John the baptizer. See Park- 
hurst, Campbell, Scapula and Schleusner. 

The learned gentleman, in attempting, p. 18. to con- 
vict me of inaccuracy, says that Schrevelius gives 
mergo as " the primary sense of ^octtti^co. This is in- 
correct, for the rendering of Schrevelius is '* baptizo 
mergo^ lavo^^"^^ thus making baptize the primary sense 
of the word, and to dip the second sense. The author 
then resorts to the rendering of Parkhurst, which he 
states thus: '^ Sense 1st, to dip, immerse, or plunge in 
water," and adds that in his second and third sense he 
retains the same meaning. Here again the learned gen- 
tleman fails to state the fact. Dr. Parkhurst's exposi- 
tion of the meaning oi baptizo is as follows; 

*' I. To dip ^ immerse^ or plunge in w^ater; but in the 
New Testament it occurs not strictly in this 
SENSE, unless so far as this is included in sense H. 
and HI. below. 

n. BoLTTri^ofAcci Mid. and Pass, to wash one^s self, be 
washed^ xvash^ i. e. the hands by immersion or dipping 
in v/ater, Mark vii. 4. &:c. 

III. To baptize^ to immerse in, or wash with 

WATER IN TOKEN OF PURIFICATION FROM SIN 
AND SPIRITUAL POLLUTION. "f 

From Parkhurst's own words it appears that he does 
not think immersion necessary to baptism; for after 
giving immerse as the first sense, he says it does not 
occur stiictly in this sense in the New Testament; and 

* Vide I^exicon Manuale Grcco-Latirum Schrevelii 4to. Ed. 
Gal. Rc^bertson in ^ocTtrfy — En^^lish " to bafuizc^ to di^% to ivash*\ 
t Greek and Engl. Lex. for the N. T. 



41 

under sense third he positively declares that it signifies 
to xvash with water. But under sense fifth he gives us 
his idea very explicitly, when he quotes Stockius with 
approbation, as saying that ^' anciently the water was 
copiously poured on those who were baptized, or they 
themselves were plunged therein." The truth then is 
that Parkhurst decides as much in fiivour of baptism 
by copious pouring as of baptism by immersion. It is 
thus Mr. Jones, Mr. Booth, and almost every Baptist 
writer I have ever seen, abuses lexicographers and 
public confidence. 

With respect to the second branch of the charge 
brought against us, namely, that we fault the common 
translation of the scriptures^ it is easy to reply, " Phy- 
sician, heal thyself;" for does not Mr. Jones, do not 
Baptist writers generally contend, that the common 
translation of ^(x^Tm^oo in the New Testament is errone- 
ous and should have been immerse^ and that sv J J^^xi, 
Matt. iii. 11. is improperly translated with water, and 
should have been in water? or where can there be 
shown a more violent attempt to put down any trans- 
lation than is made by Robinson and others in refer- 
ence to the English translation of Acts xix. 4, 5. in 
order to extort, by putting the passage to the rack, .a 
verdict in favour of their theory? 

But to advance in our strictures, it is really amusing 
to observe the learned operations of the gentleman in 
his criticisms on the word ^otTrrifw, in his answer to 
Mr. Edwards. He marches on with a superb step 
through the fair scenes of classical Greece, penetrates 
the vast region of biblical literature, and rounds off his 
erudite career with High Dutch, Low Dutch, and 
Welsh translations of the New Testament; and all this 
to bring out the magnificent result, that /B^tTrr/fw signi= 
fies to dip or immerse.^ I will not follow the gentlei- 
man in his critical excursions, for this obvious reaspii^ 

*6ee Ans'A'er to Edwards, t). 106 — }5^, 

F 



42 

that the plain reader for whom I write neither knows 
nor cares any thing about Homer's verse, or High 
Dutch and Low Dutch translations; and is alike edified 
by scraps from Aristotle as by the enchanting sound of 
Welsh words. Two or three of his criticisms, however, 
which bring him into contact with certain passages of 
scripture important to this controversy, shall be tran- 
siently noticed, 

Treatmg of Heb. ix. 10. which speaks of *' divers 
washmgs,'' Gr. different baptisms ^ he observes that " if 
the word was rendered immersions it would make 
sense and exhibit the truth: for this is the meaning of 
bathing the flesh, the body or himself. I find this pas- 
sa^ge considered by that great man, Grotius, who says 
on this passage, " Varias lotiones nominat, quia lotio 
alia erat sacerdotum. Exod. xxix. 4. Alia Levitarum, 
alia Israelitarum post impuritatem contractam/' p. 
118. That due estimation may be given to Mr. Jones' 
learning and accuracy, I will now translate the passage 
as it stands in Grotius, placing the original in the mar- 
gin for the comparison of the learned reader. " He 
[the apostle] calls them ' various washings,' because 
there was a distinct washing of the priests. Exod. xxix. 
4. a different one of the Levites, Numb. viii. 7. and 
a still different one of the Israelites, in consequence of 
contracting certain kinds of defilement."* This is the 
comment of Grotius, which the learned gentleman in- 
troduces to corroborate his rendering of the word jSatTr- 
ricfA^oig by immersions; but which, alas for our critic! 
speaks the very language, holds forth the very ideas 
which we all wish to see expressed, namely, that the 
different washings of the apostle denoted the different 
species of washing, whether partial or entire, practised 

* Varias lotiones nominat, quia lotio alia erat sacerdotum, Exodi. 
xxix. 4. alia Levitarum, Num. viii. 7. alia Israelitarum post impu- 
ritatem, aliquamcontractam. Lev. xv. 8, 16, 18, 27. xvii. 15. xxii. 
6. Numb. xix. 19. Annot. Grotii in Heb. ix. 10. The reader will 
perceive Mr. Jones has mutilated this passage. 



43 

among the Jews, including even tlie Levitical purifica- 
tion by sprinkling. Let the reader consult the texts 
here referred to by Grotius, and he will see that the 
commentator meant to expound the words ^ioc(po^oig 
P>aTtri(r^ot<; different baptisms^ as comprehending all the 
partial washings, sprinklings and immersions prescrib- 
ed under the law for either consecration or purifica- 
tion, if we are to credit St. Paul and his expositor Gro- 
tius. Thus, then, when Moses washed Aaron and his 
sons, which was evidently a partial washing, he baptized 
them; — when he sprinkled the water of purifying upon 
the Levites he baptized them — a doctrine which every 
Baptist must reject, or yield the peculiarities of his 
scheme of baptism. 

Mr. Jones farther remarks, *' as far as my observa- 
tion extends the learned generally understand this pas- 
sage of divers immersions." p. 119. Your observation! 
yes sir; but we begin to suspect that to be extreme- 
ly limitted; and besides, your representations of the 
opinions of such of the learned as you attempt to quote 
are so aukward and mutilated that we cannot trust your 
report as to others. The truth is, learned men, with a 
few exceptions, understand it otherwise, and consider 
it as comprehending the various ablutions of the Mo- 
saic ritual, however performed.* 

BotTTTi^w and ^oiTTTKr^o?, as used in Mark vii. 4 — 8. Mr. 
Jones labours to prove were designed to express that 
the Jews after being at market immersed themselves 

* Some of them explain it thus: " Any washing commanded by 
the Mosaical law," Hammond in loco — ^' Any kind of washing, 
whether by dipping or sprinkling," Owen in loco — Baptismus- 
Graecis qiioevis est lotio sen ablutio, sive immersione, sive assper- 
sione qauas fiat. " Baptism among the Greeks is any washing or 
ablution, whether made by immersion or the sprinkling of water.'* 
David Pareus in loco — " Various sorts of washings of the sacrifices, 
and of the priests, and of the people." Guise — Omnibus omnino 
purgationibus Leviticus, de quibus etiam locutus est Pauius, Heb. 
vi. 2. et ix. 10. — The Levitical purifications in general of which 
Paul speaks, Heb. vi. 2. and ix, 10. Schleusner. 



44 

'I 

before dinner^ and that the baptism of cups, pots, bra- 
"zen vessels and tables was the'irimmersioninwater. This 
position he supports by a lengthy quotation from Dr. 
Gill's exposition of the passage. But whence did Dr. 
Gill derive his matter of proof in support of the fact? 
Why, from that very kind of evidence which he himself 
rejects in another case as utterly irrelevant. He and the 
other Baptist writers treat the Jewish writers very much 
as they do the Christian Fathers. When Jewish prose- 
lyte baptism for adults and infants is the question, these 
writers are very equivocal authority — they are not to 
he trusted: but shift the question — let the inquiry be 
respecting the baptism of pharisees before dmner, and 
then their testimony becomes omnipotent in evincing 
that such baptisms were immersions of the whole bo- 
by in water. 

That the Jews frequently immersed themselves I am 
free to own, but that Dr. Gill has given the whole truth 
in evidence I am fearless to deny; because I do so upon 
authority as respectable, to say the least, as the Baptist 
doctor. Dr. Hammond's judicious note on this passage, 
in which there is a quotation from Maimonides, one of 
the Jewish writers cited by Dr. Gill, makes the partial- 
ity of this commentator entirely visible. Speaking of 
the manner of such w^ashings he observes from Pocock 
that it was " a rule of the rabbins, set down by Mai- 
monides in these words, Tr. Beracoth, c. 6. *' A man 
shall wash his hands in the morning sq that it shall suf- 
fice him for the w^hole day, and he shall not need to 
wash his hands as oft as he eats; which holds in case 
he do not avert his mind any other way (that is, go 
abroad, or meddle with business, go to market, &c.) 
but if he do so, he is bound to wash his hands as oft 
as there is need of washing, that is before he eat oi' 
pray. And so that may well be the meaning of the place, 
that the pharisees eat no meat before they have wash- 
ed their hands; and in case after the morning washing 
they go to the market, or fall to any worldly business, 



4.5 

wherein there may be very easily some legal pollution, 
they must wash their hands again before they dine."^ 
In this interpretation almost every critic and commen- 
tator of eminence concurs — Pool, Whitby, Guise, 
Campbell, Parkhurst, Scott and Schleusner, with many 
others, all agree that the baptism of which Mark speaks 
in this place is washing of hands; though two or three 
ofthis number suppose that such washing was performed 
by immersing the hands in water. But this with Dr. Gill 
and Baptist writers would not be admitted as a baptism 
of the person. I ought to ask the learned gentleman's par- 
don for not placing among the abov^mentioned critics 
the name of Grotius, whom he calls, and properly 
too, " a great man." Grotius not only sustains the fore- 
going exposition of Mark vii. 4. but speaking of the 
parallel text, Luke. xi. 38. '' marvelled xh^the had not 
Viashed^^'' QfX. had not been baptized *' before dinner," 
says that g/3ct7rT<c-S>;, the word there used, is of the same 
signification as svivj/ctro t*? %€<^<3tc, from which remark 
it is very evident he considered the washing of the 
hands by pouring water upon them to be truly and 
properly a baptism; and this is unquestionably the true 
meaning of these passages. Clemens Alexandrinus, 
speaking of the custom of washing the hands before 
prayer, says that the Jews pushed this practice to so 
scrupulous a length as not unfrequently to he baptized 
in hed;\ and thus makes it manifest that in the time of 
this Father, washing the hands was considered a bap- 
tism of the person, and that such baptism was most 
probably effected by affusion. As to the m^ode of wash- 
ing hands in ancient times, it was performed by pour- 
ing water upon them, as Elisha " poured water on the 
hands of Elijah." 2 Kings iii. 11. The same custom 
/Is mentioned by Homer, one of the oldest writers in the 
world except such as were inspired, Odys. 4. 216. and 
also by Virgil, who lived but a short period before the 

* Hammond in Loc. 



46 

time of St. Mark. En. 1. 705. And modern travellers, 
as Hanway, Pitts, and others, mention that such is still 
the universal practice in the east. 

The learned gentleman blames Mr. Edwards for 
writing the original word for tables xAiv^ti, but impro- 
perly, for this is the very word used in St. Mark, 
though in a different case, which is the usual, indeed 
the most proper method of introducing the original 
word when there is no express quotation; and having 
done this he tells us that " Dr. Gill considers the word 
kKivov, and says, the Syriac, Persic and Ethiopic ver- 
sions favour the idea that the couches on which they 
lay when eating might be meant." p. 122. After tell- 
ing Mr. Jones there is no such word as jcA/vov in the 
Greek language, I will say I have no objection to the 
idea that the ycAivoci of this passage were the couches or 
benches on which the Jews reclined when they took 
their meals. But when it is asserted that these couches 
were dipped in order to be washed, I demur to the asser- 
tion and to the facts adduced in proof of it. Dr. Gillresorts 
to the very authorities which he himself deems ques- 
tiona.ble as to proselyte baptism, namely the Jewish 
writers, to bear him out in the immersion of beds. 
There is, however, testimony more ancient for saying 
that under the law the Jews did not alwa}'s immerse 
even vessels which could have been more conveniently 
done. The Septuagint translation of the pentateuch, 
which was inaade two hundred and eighty-five years 
before Christ, employs the word nip to, which signifies 
to wash by pouring, to represent the washing of a 
vessel, Lev. xv. 12. jcot/ o-ksuo? ^uAgvov vi<pYi(nroLi C^ati, 
*^ Every wooden vessel shall be rinsed with water." 
So that it is very certain that even the smallest article 
here enumerated must have been washed without 
dipping. 

The triclinea on which the ancients reclined at din- 
ner were wooden frames, sometimes without cover and 
at others covered with mattrasses, and were large 



47 

enough to hold three persons. That these articles were 
lustrated or religiously washed by dipping is far from 
probable, notwithstanding the examples adduced by Dr. 
Gill, which are of too late adate, and which, if it should be 
admitted that they were put into water and their feet 
dipped in the mud, might have been washed by pour- 
ing, as was the chariot of Ahab at the pool of Sama- 
ria, 1 Kings xxii. 38. (LXX. oc7rivi^\^oi,v to oIi[a>x iiti ryjv 
jc^vjvvjv 'I.ccf^ot^ilocg) "and one washed the chariot in the pool 
of Samaria." That such articles were washed in another 
way we have ancient and positive attestation by Ho- 
mer in his Odysse, b. 189. 

« The seats with purple clothe in order due, 
^nd lei the abstersive sponge the board renew.''* 

The poet Martial also, who flourished but a short time 
after Mark wTote his gospel, testifies very explicitly to 
the same fact. 

Hsec tibi sorte datur tergendis sfiongia mensis. 

These authorities show that the ancient and more com- 
mon method of washing tables was with sponges fil- 
led with water. It deserves special notiee that after all 
Dr. Gill's zeal to prove immersion here by quotations 
from the Jewish writers, he is compelled to introduce a 
passage from the rule regulating such washings as given 
by Maimonides, which shows clearly enough that the 
baptism of vessels was not always in the mode of im- 
mersion. It is as follows; " And none are obliged to 
this immersion but molten vessels bought of Gentiles: 
but if he borrows of Gentiles, or a Gentile leaves in 
pawn molten vessels (made of cast brass or iron) he 
washes, or boils them, or heats in the fire, but need 
not immerse them; and so if he buys vessels of wood 
or vessels of stone, he washes or boils them, but need 
not dip them; and so earthen vessels need not be 
immersed.^ From this citation, as well as from the 

* See Dr. Gill's Expos, on the N. T, in Lpco. 



48 

Mosaic ritual, it appears that in cleansing vessels it 
was not deemed necessary to immerse any of them but 
brazen vessels, and not even them in all cases. Now 
it is not certain that the word le^wv signifies *' brazen 
vessels," indeed it is most probable it does not: for 
Schleusner says that the |ef>j? was '* a wooden vessel 
of any kind destined for common use."* These wooden 
vessels were of the description which even Dr. Gill 
himself allows were not to be immersed. So that from 
very respectable authority there is reason to believe 
that the baptism of vessels here mentioned by St. Mark 
was performed in the mode of affusion or sprinkling, 
not of dipping. 

With much parade of criticism Mr. Jones attempts 
to expose Mr. Edwards and myself for the translations 
we have made of sv, £<?, and certain other Greek pre- 
positions, as they occur in the texts which describe 
the baptisms administered by John and Philip. See', 
\Rev. p. 16. Ans. to Edwards p. 128. 

Speaking of Matt. 3. 6. where the phrase sv tw 
\(^^^Mv\ occurs, and which our translators render " in 
Jordan^^"* and referring to Mr. Edwards as having said 
that gv signifies not only in but also nighy near^ at^ by^ 
&c. he remarks^ with an accuracy which few will wish 
to copy, *' This obliged me to examine my Lexicons: 
— none of them favoured Peter^s (the courtly style in 
which this author speaks of Mr. Edwards) assertion" 
— *' none of them said it meant nigh^ near^ at^ by, &c." 
The reader will remember that one of the learned gen- 
tleman's Lexicons is Parkhurst's Greek and English 
Lexicon for the New Testament, as he not unfrequent- 
ly quotes the work; and he will be astonished to learn 
that Dr. Pai'khurst does in that very Lexicon give fv 
the meaning for which we contend, namely, '' by, nigh 
to, and moreover refers, in illustration of this meaning, 

* Vas omiiis generis ligneum, cotidiacis usibm destinatum, Sec 
Lex Gr. Lat. in N. Test, in |*f »;?. 



49 

fo John xix. 41. ^' Now in the place where he wus 
crucified there was a garden."^" In this text the com- 
mon translation of the words gv rw tottw does not ex- 
press the fact, which was that the garden was near to 
the place of crucifixion; it should have been, ^* Now 
nigh to the place, &:c." 

Schleusner, a man no less famous for the herculean 
force of his genius than for the extent of his erudition, 
expounds the word as we do, thus, " 7) nigh to^ at, 
near^^'' and refers to the following very appropriate ex- 
amples of the propriety of suchrendering.f Matt, xxiv, 
15, '' When ye therefore shall see the abomination of 
desolation — stand (sv totto? dyiod) in the holy place; 
then let them that be in Judea flee to the mountains." 
This warning was given to instruct the Christians to 
flee as soon as the first evident indications of danger 
should occur in Jerusalem; of w^hich one should be 
*^ the abomination of desolation standing near the holy 
place:" for fact demonstrates that the abomination of 
desolation, namely, the Roman army (Comp. Luke 
xxi. 20, 21.) did not stand in the holy place, but ori 
the outside of the city, when the Christians were direct- 
ed to make their escape. Luke xiii. 4. — " The tower 
(gv TO) 2<Aa)ot^) in Siloam fell;"-— the translation should 
have been the tower at Siloam, for none will pretend 
that the tower stood in the pool of Siloam. John x. 23. 
** Jesus walked (sv tw is^w) in the temple, in Solomon's 
porch;" — the rendering should have been near the 
temple, because every one knows Solomon's porch was 
not in the temple but near to it. These were Schieus- 
ner's examples — I will add a few others. John i. 28. 
*^ These things were done (sv) in Bethabara beyond 
Jordan, where John was baptizing"— Mr. Jones will 
not believe, I presume, that John baptized in the house 
or village called Bethabara wdien Jordan was near it^^ 

* See Parkhnrst's Gr. Eng. Lex. on the word. Sense VI. 
t Vide Gr. Lat. Lex. in IS\ Test, in jV — Schleusner 7) Ju>it«^ sid« 
Diope, Sec. 

G 



50 

all parties, therefore, must conspire to translate it, 
*' These things were done at or nigh to Bethabara," &c^ 
John X. 20. " Who leaned on Jesus' bosom (gv rca ^^u 
ttvcjo) at supper. ^^ Heb. ix. 4. " The ark of the cove- 
nant overlaid round about with ^^old, (ev rj) wherein (it 
should be wf^A^o which)w^s the golden pot." — 1 Thess. 
ii. 19. '' Our Lord Jesus Christ (sv) at his commg." 
Heb. xii. 2. (ev) '' ^t the right hand of the throne of 
God." 

Judges xviii. 12. " And they went up and pitched 
(LXX. gy Kccoiciliac^ifA) in Kerjath-jearim in Judah; 
wherefore they called the name of the place Mahanneh- 
dan unto this day: behold it is behind Kirjath-jearim,^'* 
Here the scite of the encampment, which was behind 
Kirjath-jearim, was nigh to, not in it. 1 Kings ii. 34. 
" He was buried (LXX. sv tw o<>t« cimtov) in his own 
house in the wilderness." The grave was near to, or 
at, not in the house. Josh. x. 10. " And slew them 
with great slaughter (LXX. ev r^/Bctwv) at Gibeon,^^ 
Josh. iii. 8. (Comp. v. 13, 13.) " When ye are come 
to the brink of the water ye shall stand still (LXX. iv 
rca lo^^ocvy]) in Jordan^ Here coming to the brink of the 
water is called standing sv rw \q^^(x,vyi (the very words 
used in Matthew and Mark) and cannot mean any 
thing else than at Jordan, or by the edge of its waters^ 
This example is decisive, and in conjunction with pre- 
ceding ones settles the question as to the proper ren- 
dering of the passages in dispute. When Mr, Ed- 
wards and myself, therefore, translate Matt. lii. 6. 
(gv Tw lofi^oLvy]) at Jordan, Mark i. 5. (gv tw lo^^Avt) 
TTorccixca) at the river Jordan, and John iii. 23. (gv octvcav) 
at JEnon, we are supported by the best, nay by unan- 
swerable authorities. Indeed there is scarcely any thing 
more common in the geographical descriptions of the 
Greek scriptures than this very use of the preposi- 
tion 2V.* 

* Instances no less convincing are these that follow: Josh. v. lo, 
Ruth iii. 7. 1 Kings ii. 27, 34. Luke xxiv. 12, Rom. viii. 34. 



51 

Mr. Jones will not allow Mr. Edwards and mjseli 
to say that the preposition ug, which commonly signi- 
fies intOy will also bear to be rendered towards, near to, 
at, and the \likc; and asserts peremptorily that '* the 
word is used about one hundred and nine times in the 
Evangelist Matthew; and in none of these places will 
it bear to be translated, towards, near, &c." Ibid 130. 
That the reader may have another instance of this wri- 
ter's ^fl^^/?Yy and accuracy in reporting facts, let him ob- 
serve how St. Matthew uses the word in the following 
passages. Matt. ii. 21. ** And went (e^) towards the 
land of Israel." — viii. 18. " Gave commandment 
to depart {nc) to the other side" — xiv. 22. " Go be- 
fore him (g<:) unto the other shore" — xxviii. I. *' As 
it began to dawn [ag) towards the first day of the 
week." See Matt. XV. 24. xxii. 4. xxiv. 14. 

Other sacred writers use it in the same manner. 
Mark v. 1. *' Came over [ng) unto the other side," 
Luke viii. 26. '' Arrived [ng) at the country of the 
Gadarenes." — xxiv. 50. " He led them out as far as 
{ng) to Bethany." John iv. 5. " Then cometh he 
{zig) to a city." Christ had not yet entered the city. 
V. 6, 8. xi. 31, 32, 38. " She fell down {ag) at his 
feet — She goeth [iig) unto the grave — Jesus cometh 
(^iig) to tlie grave." — xxiv. 4, 9. '^ Jesus stood {ng) 
on, (i. e. nigh to), the shore — As soon as they were 
come (ag) to land." Acts xxviii. 14. " And so we 
went [iic) toward Rome." John xviii. 28. *' Then 
led they Jesus {iig) unto the hall of judgment — They 
themselves went not into the judgment hall." 

See alsoJohnxiii.l. Phil. iii. 11. Eph. iv. 13. 1 Pet. 
iv. 9. 

The Septuagint also furnishes a great variety of 
such examples. Jud. iv. 13. " From Harosheth of the 
Gentiles (sk) to the river Kishon." — 2 Sam. v. 6. 
" And the king and his men went [ng) to Jerusalem," 
that is in order to attack and take it before they could 
enter into it. xii. 29. ** David went {ug) ^oRabbah and 



52 

ibught against and took it." 1 Kings i. 38. '^ And 
caused Solomon to ride upon king David's mule and 
brought him (c*;) to Gihon." No body will be weak 
enougli to think that Solomon on the occasion of his 
inauguration and thus mounted was put into the spring 
Gihon. Joshua iii. 15. The feet of the priests (e 8a (p>jo-otv 
ik fj^i^og Tov v^ccrog rov lQ^^ai>vQv) were dipped in the brim 
of the water. ^^ Here the feet of the priests vjqyc dipped 
into the brim of the water, and as yet appears from 
verse 13. the soles of their feet only were wet with the 
water. When it is said, therefore, that their feet were 
dipped into the edge of the xvater it is plain we are to 
understand from the connexion, the priests came so 
close to the water as that the soles alone were wet by 
the waters oozing under them. 

Nothing scarcely is more common in the Greek 
scriptures than this use of sk, and consequently the fact 
shows that the texts in controversy will receive a very 
just and appropriate rendering when they ai'e translated 
in the sense contended for by us. Mark. i. 9. '' And 
was baptized of John (e^ tov Io^cTcj^vv^v) at Jordan." Acts 
viii. 38. '•' And they both descended, [ng rco v^ca^) to the 
water both Philip and the eunuch, andhe baptized him." 
But because itis said, verse 36. "They came(£7r/Ti v^u^) 
to a certain water y"" Mr. Jones remarks, "you see here 
that Philip and the eunuch came to (s;r<) a certain Avater, 
but this word did not bring them into it." p. 131. Very 
true, nor does this point in the description even bring 
them within reach of the water, because they w^ere yet in 
the chariot, and most probably on the bank of the water, 
what ever it was, whether spring, or pit, or brook; 
and consequently they had still to descend to the 
water. What is more common with both ancient and mo- 
dern writers than to make mention of coming to and 
even upon water ^ when nothing more is meant than 
approaching near to it or coming upon its bank; and 
this is precisely the idea conveyed in this passage — 
They came near to the water but had yet to desc^^nd 



oj; 



to it. Thus Jud. vii. 1. " Pitched (LXX, e7r<) beside 
the well of Harod." Acts iii. 10. '' Sat for alms (stt*) at 
the beautiful gate.'' John xxi. 1. " Jesus showed himself 
(sT*) at the sea of Tiberius." See also John vi. 16, 21. 

Mr. Jones makes a feeble effort to prove that the 
preposition ctTro signifies out of in Mark i. 9. " And 
straitway coming out of the water;" but in doing so he 
^'iolates the grand argument of Baptists in favour of 
immersion, namely, that we are to expound the words 
according to their primary meaning. It is not for me 
to say \V'hether the rule be a good or a bad one; it be- 
longs to the Baptists, and with them should be decisive. 
I have only to say, then, th?Ltfro7n is the primary mean- 
ing of i)t7ro,and translate the text inquestionaccordingly, 
and straitway coming [c^'KQ)from the water."*- My op- 
ponents are compelled to receive this translation, and 
in doing so to yield also the rendering we contend for 
in reference to the other prepositions; forif ^Trobe ren- 
dered ^/ro;??, then €jc in the parallel passages must mean 
the same thing; and si? and £>c, as conjoined with them 
in the same description, cannot express more than at 
or to. 

In reference to s)c the learned gentleman remarks, 
'' Parkhurst gives one rule which will determine the 
dispute: he says, '•^ governing a genitive, it denotes mo- 
tion from a place, out of,'''' ibid 136. Dr. Parkhurst says 
this: '•'- Ek 1. governing a genitive 1. It denotes motion 
from a place, out of from. Mat. ii. 15. viii. 28. xxviii. 

2. Mark i. 29. etal." This is but another instance of 
our author's great care in quoting, as he leaves out 

* Every Lexicographer of eminence gives from as the first 
meaning of ^jTro; thus Parkhurst "A^o governing a genitive l.From, 
see Matt. i. 17,24. iii. 7. 13. viii. 1, II. Mark vii. 4. Acts xvi. 
33." See also Schleusner, Constantine, Lex. app. Antwerp. Poly- 
glpt, &c. 

Thus, too, the word is rendered, Acts xiii. 13. John xiii. 8. xiii. 

3. Luke iv. 1. xvi. 21. xxiv. 2, 9. Mark vii. 28, Matt, xxviii. 
S. Acts ix. 8. and in many other places. 



54 

from^ which Parkhurst has given as a primary mean- 
ing, along with out of; both, however, denoting motion 
from a place. Confining the gentleman to his own rule, 
which requires him to receive the primary meaning, 
I have translated Acts viii. 39. in conformity to it, 
** and when they had ascended from the water." 

But it will be expected that I should say something 
about Enon. Concernmg this place the learned 2ind ac- 
curate Mr. Jones observes, " Mr. Robinson says, Enon 
was a large fountain called the Dove's Eye. And to 
corroborate his sentiments he quotes the Syriac, Persic, 
Arabic and iEthiopic versions, which all render it a 
fountain." ibid. 139. It is truly an unfortunate circum- 
stance for our author that Mr. Robinson says no such 
thing; for he seems entirely at a loss to determine 
whether Enon was a natural spring, an artificial reservoir, 
or a cavernous temple of the sun. But Mr. Robinson 
shall sp^eak for himself. 

" Salhn was at least fifty miles north, up the river 
Jordan, from the place where John had begun to bap- 
tize. iEnon, near it, was either a natural spring, an arti- 
ficial reservoir, or a cavernous temple of the sun, pre- 
pared by the Canaanites, the ancient idolatrous inhabi- 
tants of the land. The eastern versions, that is the 
Syriac, Ethiopic, Persic, and Arabic, of the gospel 
of John, as well as the Hebrew and Chaldean Ain-yon 
or Gnain-yon, suggest these opinions, and it is difficult 
to say which is the precise meaning of the Evangelist's 
word iEnon; and it is not certain whether the plain 
meaning be, John was baptizing at the Dove- spring 
near Salim, or John was baptizing at the Sun-fountain 
near Saiim."* Whatever we are to think of Mr. Ro- 
binson's attempt to understand the Evangelist, we must 
at least admire his candour in yielding the point as to 
the meaning of 6»/z ainon which he translates, '^a^the 
Dove- spring or a^ the Sun -fountain." 

* Robinson's Hist, of Baptism, p. 15. 



S5 

From the various instances which I have given of 
Mr. longs' false steps, as an author, let the reader ask 
himself whether such a man ought to be trusted. 

But to proceed, the much water of this passage is a 
circumstance descriptive of the natural advantages of 
the place, and not the reason why John selected that 
for the purpose of baptizing. On this account it took 
the appellation Ainon, says Schleusner, because yyy 
no less than ]^y denotes figuratively a fountain. John 
was baptizing at Enon near Salim, so denominated 
from its ttoKKx vcJ^otrot, much -water , or from its being 
-well watered. That John did not select Enon on ac- 
count of the size or depth of its waters is evident from 
this circumstance, that had he been anxious to get deep 
water for immersion his purpose could have been an- 
swered much better at Jordan, which was distant but 
a little way from Enon.* 

Mr. Jones seems quite fretted at our calling circumci- 
sion the seal of the covenant, and thinks that Rom. iv. 
11.'' He received the sign of circumcision^ a seal of the 
righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncir- 
cumcised,'^^ is not sufficient authority lor speakmg after 
this manner. Let. p. 22. And what if it is not? it would 
not therefore follow that we have no such authority. 
This text, however, does prove incontestibly that cir- 
cumcision was, not what Mr. Jones dares to call it, a 
mark of" national distinction^'^'* but, the seal of the 
righteousness of Abr'aham' s justifying faith. And this, 
let me say, implies no less than that circumcision was 
the seal of the covenant. The faith of this patriarch had 
an object, and that object was none other than God's 

♦AINQN iJ^en^TO. Nomenindeclinabileurbis, sitae prop. Jordanem 
in fiiiibus iribus Manasse ubi ea tribiu Issachar est finitima juxta 
Salim septem miiiaribus a scythiopoli distantis. Hie baptizavit 
Johannes, Job. iii, 23. quod ibi multae erant aquae unde etiam 
nomen suum accepit V^T^ at \y metaphorice fontem notat, &c. 
Schleusner, " Indeed the name does imply the same as a place 
of springs." Dr. W^eU's Hist. Geog. of the Old and New Test. 
Vol. 2. p. 162. 



56 

covenant or promise of mercy through a crucified Re- 
deemer; none other than the all meritorious ransom — - 
the all sufficient righteousness of the Son of 
God; for nothing else ever justified one of the fallen 
sons of Adam. Now the sign of circumcision was the 
seal of this very righteotisjiess^ which is really the 
same thing as saying it is the seal of the covenant, in 
as much as the justif) ing righteousness apprehended 
by Abraham's faith cannot be detached from the gra- 
cious covenant made with the patriarch, and so ex- 
plicitly referred to, nay quoted by St. Paul, in this very 
chapter,^ So that this text fully supports us in calling 
circumcision the seal of the covenant, whatever Mr. 
Jones may think of it, and puts down the strange dis- 
tinction which that gentleman takes, with respect to cir- 
cumcision's being not the seal of the righteousness of 
Abraham's faith, but the sign of national distinction^ 
to his posterity. For how, I ask, could that rite be a seal 
of the righteousness of Abraham's faith, and yet be- 
come, by a single transformation, a mark of political 
discrimination to his seed? where did he get the strange 
figment of a politico- spiritual rite? He that can dream 
thus, must be far gone in a certain species of mental 
aberration which I do not like to name. 
I'ribns anticyris caput insanabile. 

The gentleman, however, is compelled to allow that 
circumcision " is called a token of the covenant." p. 23. 
Yes sir, it is so called. Gen. xvii. 11. and means the 
same thing as seal ox rite of confirmation^ to the cove- 
nant of Jehovah. It is thus that Dr. Clarke expounds 
the word '* mK7 leoth for a sign of spiritual things: for 
the circumcision made in the flesh was designed to 
signify the purification of the heart from all unright- 
eousness, as God particularly showed in the law itself. 
See Deut. x. IG. See also Rom. ii. 25 — 29. Coloss. 

* Let t!;e reader compare Gen. xii. and xvii. with Rom. iv. 
and Gal.iii. See also my Sermon (2nd edition) p. 15—21. 



57 

ii'. 11. And it was a seal of th^t right eotisness^ or jus- 
tification, that comes 62/ Jaith, Horn. iv. 11. That some 
of the Jews had a just notion of its sp27ituarmttntiou^ 
is plain from many passages in the Chaldee paraphra- 
ses, and in the Jewish writers. I borrow one passage 
from the book Zohar, quoted by Ainsworth: ' At what 
time a man is sealed with this holy seal (of circumci- 
sion) thenceforth he seeth the holy blessed God properly, 
and the holy soul is united to him. If he be not wor- 
thy, and keepeth not this sign, what is written? JB?/ the 
breath of God the?/ perish; (Job iiii. 9.) because this 
seal of the holy blessed God was not kept. But if he be 
worthy, and keep it, the Holy Ghost is not separated 
from him.' " 

** Your calling baptism and the Lord's supper, seal- 
ing ordinances, is only priestcraft, to deceive your 
hearers and in the issue to increase your salaries." p. 
23. Mr. Jones, it seems, is a discerner of spirits and 
is able to report the very state of men's souls. All 
who call, all who ever did call, baptism and the Lord's 
supper sealing ordinances, are and have been, it would 
seem, without consciences. Other men may err and still 
be honest. But we, like our fathers, have been intention- 
ally wrong, having no other object than to deceive the 
people and put money iaito our pockets. Such deceivers, 
according to this gentleman's very charitable judgment^ 
must be deeply criminal, and can have no milder fate 
than the damnation of hell. Thus tt'C', thus our fathers^ 
of whom many shed their blood in attestation of truth, 
are proscribed from the judgment of charity, and con» 
signed to infamy and ruin. 

But pause, rash mortal, and listen to the appalling 
sound of Heaven's thunder. " Who art thou that 
judgest another man's servant? To his own master he 
standeth orfalleth. Why dost thou judge thy brother? 
or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we 
shall all stand before the- judgment seat of Christ, 
Judge not, that vebe not judged. For w^ith what judg- 

H 



58 

meat ye judge, ye"shall be judged; and with what mea- 
sure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. He 
shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed 
no mercy." 

I tremble to re-echo the thunders with which Heaven 
guards his awful prerogative, and pray that it may ne- 
ver be meted into your bosom as you have measured 
judgment to us. 

Allow me only to add, that the charge of increasing 
salary is a stale slander. We hear it from the mouths 
of accusing sectaries; we hear it from the mouths of 
infidels: all that can be borne; but when we hear it 
from the lips of those we would embrace as brethren 
in Christ, it is then we feel that reproach has a sting! 

If salary be our object we succeed badly. A mere 
competency is all that any of our clergy can boast; 
but in the western country we, miserable men, who 
are stigmatized for money preaching, have, with few 
exceptions, like Paul of Tarsus, to labour xvorkingwith 
our hands^ in order to gain a support for ourselves and 
families — nay more, in preaching the gospel and in 
supporting the truth we have to make many sacrifices 
and not unfrequently suffer want: Yet after all we are 
to be held up to infamy and execration, by the tongues 
and pens, not of infidels and blasphemers only, but by 
those who are in profession the preachers of a heavenly 
charity, which *' thinketh no evil," and is opposed to 
*' all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and 
evil speaking." 

But the stern unfeeling bosom of this ghostly accu- 
ser, is not satiated with a sentence of condemnation; 
mockery is added to calumny and proscription. He 
asks; *' Can you suppose by your watery hocus-pocus 
you put a child into a better state than Adam left it 
in?" p. 23. It has always been a maxim with the wise 
and good, never to speak with levity or jeering of 
sacred things. Even a Heathen poet could inculcate 
and observe it in his conduct towards false divinities: 



59 

" Hence my mouth, 
Tliis speech presumptuous hencel Detested wisdomi 
To wag the tongue in arrogant reviling 
Against the gods! 'Tis very madness sure, 
Or strikes a chord in unison with madness. 
To brawl out boasts, vainglorious, out of time.* 

Merciful Heavens! and do we hear an aged Christian 
minister call the solemn consecration of an infant to 
God, by washing it with water in the awful name of the 
sacred Trinity — a rite which thousands of Christ's fol- 
lowers deem most sacred, and attend upon it witli a 
profound and melting devotion, a watery hocus-pocus! 
What profane indecorum! What unfeeling irreverent 
insult! 

But truce to remonstrance — we place this piece of 
wanton reviling on the same pillory with unnumbered 
other harsh, unseemly and even vulgar things which 
disgrace the pages of this mistaken old man! 

As to the question of benefit here so indecorously 
proposed, I will pledge myself to answer it when he 
shall have answered the following, " Can you suppose 
that your plunging a person all over in a pond or river 
puts him in a better state than that in which Adam or 
even Christ left him?" 

I now take my leave of that volume of angry jargon, 
with which this ill-judging writer has affronted the 
public and especially Paedobaj^tist Christians. Even 
candid Baptists must blush for a production which not 
only falls below the character of 

Rari nantes in gurgite vasto, 

but is fraught with mistakes, misrepresentations, vul- 
garities and humiliating conceits. If the Baptist church 
has that share of learning, good sense and piety which I 
believe it has, it must feel itself humbled by the rude, 
unlearned, and, may I not say, unehristian defence set 
up by this writer. 

* Pindar, translated by Maltby, 



60 

Such advocates do credit to no cause, and, indeed, 
are alike the reproach of truth and religion. With our 
Baptist brethren I am far from invoking a (Controversy; 
I wish none, and cannot but hope none will take place. 
In justifying our creed as to baptism, I have done no 
more than \vhat is common among themselves, said 
freely and openly all I could in its defence and for its 
promotion. The exercise of this liberty is no infrac- 
tion of the law of charity, and ought not to operate pre- 
judice in any breast. Why may we not contend, and 
yet love one another?-— Where there has been a recipro- 
cation of assault and self-defence on both sides, let 
there be also a reciprocation of charity and kind offi- 
ces. If controversy must prevail, may we be enabled 
to obey that divine precept, ' ' Put on as the elect of 
God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, 
humbleness of mind, meekness, long suifering, for- 
bearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any 
man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave 
you, so also do ye. And above all these things, put on 
charity which is the bond of perfectness; and let the 
peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye' 
are called in one body and be ye thankful." 



A REVIEW 



]MR. ROBINSON'S HISTORY OF BAPTISM. 



^ CHAPTER I. 

Sect. 1. IN the work whicTiI have just examined, Mr. 
Robmson's History of Baptism receives very honour- 
able mention. This circumstance brings me fairly into 
contact with a work of a higher order indeed, but which, 
nevertheless, is entitled to little credit in respect of 
either historical verity, or solidity of argument. Mr. 
Robinson was a man of no inconsiderable genius, and 
of some erudition. He was in the first instance a Me- 
thodist preacher; but having renounced his former 
baptism and being rebaptized in the modeof im.mersion, 
he attached himself as a preacher to a Baptist congre- 
gation in Cambridge, and continued to exercise his 
talents among them with no small eclat until the close 
of his life. At some period subsequent to his connec- 
tion with the Baptists, he became a proselyte to the Soci- 
nian hypothesis, and, in the issue, a virulent opposer of 
the evangelical system, especially that view of it which 
is usually denominated Calvinism. In his preface to the 
History of Baptism, he tells the reader that he has not 
dipped his pen in gall, nor written for any party exclu- 
sively, and yet it is extremely evident that the strongest 
prejudices mingle with the details, and vent themselves 
in fierce invectives and unjust acciisations against 
every person or sect he has occasion to mention on 
the Trinitarian or Calvinistic side; while, on the 
other hand, a spirit of singular tend^erne^s and compki- 



62 

cency seems to be infused into his style whenever he 
comes to treat of persons or sects holding opinions 
analogous to his own. When I heard Socinian Baptists 
and Shakers eulogize the writings of this man, I was 
not surprised; it was what congruity of theory taught 
me to look for: but I cannot conceal the astonishment I 
felt when I saw his History of Baptism warmly ap- 
plauded and recommended to public notice by Cal- 
vinistic Baptists. I was not then, nor am I yet, able to 
account for the fact, without supposing that adult im- 
mersion was with them a matter of much greater mo- 
ment than the doctrines of grace. For allowing that 
Mr. Robinson's History is well calculated to make Bap- 
tists, it must be admitted by every person that has read 
it, to be equally well calculated to make them disci- 
ples to the doctrines of Socinus. With respect to 
the precise degree of merit to be attached to this his- 
tory, on the single subject which it professes to treat, 
I will, before I go further, make this general remark, 
that there is scarcely a single argument or fact in- 
troduced into it against infant baptism, which had not 
been amply refuted by Mr. Wall near a century before 
it was written, and yet Mr. Robinson does not take 
the least notice of the inductions of fact and conse- 
quent reasonings of that erudite historian. 

The resurrection of old cavils is really no very 
honourable business, though adorned with talents still 
more splendid than those of our author; and even the 
introduction of new matter, although accompanied with 
striking displays of invention, demands no praise, when 
the whole labour has been accomplished in violation of 
evidence glaringly manifested in every document of the 
Christian history. How far Mr. Robinson may be 
chargeable with the high crimes of the siiggestio falsi 
and the ^uppressio veri is certainly no inquiry of mine; 
but it comes fairly within my province as a reviewer, to 
detect his misrepresentations of fact, correct his dis- 
torted views of Christian antiquity, put aside his false 



63 

inductions, and exhibit in their own simple unadorned 
lustre the resistless lights of ecclesiastical history. In a 
work so voluminous, varying, and miscellaneous, as the 
History of Baptism is, it will not be expected that I 
should give every matter occurring in it evenapassing re- 
view. Many things in that work have no bearing on the 
points in question, directly or indirectly; many more, 
whether true or false, must appear utterly irrelative when 
their connexion with what is erroneous is dissolved by the 
presentation of fact; and various others, which claim no 
higher importance than what is merely anecdotal and 
fanciful, form but the interludes of the controversial 
drama; or at most the mere episodes of a polemic in- 
duction, and consequently are very properly passed 
over without notice. Subtract all these, and you will 
see the massy quarto production before us reduced to 
one of quite a moderate size; and such is the volume I 
would attempt to review, when exonerated from every 
thing extraneous, conjectural, and amusing. I shall 
then, in conducting this review, confine myself chiefly 
to such details and reasonings of the historian as re- 
spect the two great points in controversy, namely, the 
baptism- of infants, and the mode of baptism by pouring 
or sprinkling. 

On the first of these points, Mr. Robinson begins 
with attempting to obviate the inference which Pasdo- 
baptists make in favour of their practice from the testi- 
mony of Tertullian. To do this, he endeavours to show, 
by citations from Bp. Victor, that the word parvidi 
(which is the one used by this Father to describe in- 
fants) signifies such children as could speak and were 
called lectores infantuli^ infant readers. Indeed he is 
happy enough to find a line in Victor's History of the 
Vandal persecution, which, he thinks, would lead the 
reader to conjecture that these children w^ere seven 
years old. To this I might answer, that the Fathers 
frequently use the word to denote children who can- 
not speak, and like our learned historian swell my book 



B4 

with many appropriate examples of the fact: as for hi- 
stance, Jerome, in quotinj^ the decree of Cyprian con- 
cerning the baptism of a child just born, makes use of 
tlie word pm-vulum/^ But there is an easier and much 
more certain way of repelling Mr. Robinson's induc- 
tion, namely, by quoting the whole passage as it stands 
in Tertullian, and inquiring whether it does not Qontain 
internal evidence that these parvuli were mere infants; 
and to "this I now address myself. After reasoning on 
the propriety of delaying baptism when sought for by 
extemporary and unprepared converts, except in cases 
of pressing danger, Tertullian observes; *' Itaqtie pro 
cujusque personse conditione ac dispositione, etiam 
cetate cunctatio baptismi utilior est: prsecipue tamen 
circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse est, si non tam ne- 
cesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri? qui et ipsi 
per mortalitatem destituere promissiones suas possunt, 
et proventu malse indolis falli. Ait quidem Dominus, 
Nolite illos prohibere ad me venire. Veniant ergo 
dum adolescunt, veniant dum discunt, dum quo veni- 
ant docentur, liant Christiani quum Christum nosse 
potuerint. Quid festinat innocens a^tas ad remissionem 
peccatorum? Cautius agetur in secularibus, ut cui 
substantia terrena non creditur, divina credatur. No- 
rint petere salutem, ut petenti dedisse videaris. Non 
minore de causa innupti quoque procrastinandi, in 
quibus tentatio prseparata est tam virginibus per ma- 
turitatem, quam viduis per vagationem, donee aut 
nubant, aut 'continentice corroborentur. Si qui pondus 
mteliigant baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem 
quam dilationem: fides Integra secura est de salute. f 

'* Opera Hieron. Tom. 9. p. 164. 

t Teitul. De Baptismo Liber cap. 18. The edition from which 
I have made my quotations is one that was published A. D. cio. 
rc.xcvii at Frankfort, and corrected from the edition of Pame- 
lius by manuscripts and other copies, and illustrated with this 
notes of Junius and ths annotations of Rhenanns. 



05 

" Therefore the delay of baptism is the more exp^>- 
dient as it respects the condition and disposition as 
well as the ag-e of every person to be baptized; and 
tjiis moreover holds especially in reference to little 
ones. For what occasion is there, except in cases of 
urgent necessity, that the sponsors be brought into 
danger? who are alik-e liable, through death, to fail in 
accomplishing their promises, and to be deceived by 
the evolution of some evil disposition. Our Lord in- 
deed says, Do not hinder them from coming to me. 
But then let them come when they grow up: let them 
come when they are informed or understand, i. e. the 
nature and design of the ordinance; when they are in- 
structed for what end they should come: — let them be 
made Christians when they shall have become able to 
know Christ, Why does this innocent age hasten to 
the remission of sins, i. e. to baptism? Men act with 
more caution in secular concerns; than that divine 
interests should be confided to any one to whom it is 
considered improper to allow the disposal of earthly 
property. Let them know how to seek this salvation 
that you may appear to have given it .to one that ask- 
eth. For a reason no less weighty unmarried persons 
should also have their baptism delayed on account of 
their being exposed to temptation; as well virgins by 
reason of their maturity, as widows by their wander- 
ing mode of life; until they either marry or arrive at a 
confirmed continence. They who understand the great 
weight of baptism will dread rather die too hasty re- 
ception than the delay of it; and a genuine faith is se- 
cure of salvation. ' * * 

* Mr. Robinson has cited the above passage and given the v/orld 
ai translationof it; but both the one and the other carries the impres- 
sion of partiality and unfairness. In the second sentence of the 
quotation, and after the words quid enim necesse est, he has left 
out the clause, Si non tarn necesse est; which is a passage very 
material to the right understanding of the rest of the citation. I 
know the copy of TertuUian by Rigaltus wants this clause; but 
that author has been convictei^of being partial to the Baptist side 

I 



66 

Unlike our Baptist brethren TcrtuUian does not deny 
that Matt. xix. 14. '' Suffer little ehildren, and forbid 
them not, to come unto me," relates to the baptism of 
infants and their visible dedication to Christ; for he 
quotes it in express reference to that very subject. 
Neither does he contend, like them, that figurative, not 
real, infants were intended by our Lord on that occa- 
sion, who called humble converts by that name and 
description to designate the qualities of their mind. No, 
no; these were refinements for which that age was 
not prepared. He not only speaks of them as really 
being little children^ but he gives such distinctive 
chai'acters of them as show incontrovertibly that 
they must have been ?j2ere infants* They were such 
little ones as were incapable of learning any thing — 
as could not be taught why they should come to 
Christ — as were incapable of knowing Christ — as 
were unable to ask for salvation, and consequently 
could have been none other than 7nere infcmts^ who as yet 
were utterly incapacitated for learning or understand- 
ing the Christian religion, and very unlike the lectores 
infantuli or septennial children of Mr. Robinson 
and Bp. Victor. The passage in its connexion also 
makes it evident that Tertullian was not here op- 
posing the baptism of the children of professing 
parents; for to that, it is manifest from all his writings, 
he did not object; but the baptism of such infants as 
were destitute of parents or natural guardians, and 
required sponsors who should undertake for their reli- 
gious education. He distinguishes three grounds on 

of the controversy by Mr. Wall. All the older editions of Tertul- 
lian contain the clause; the one before me has it, and especially 
that of Pamelius, the very one \vhich Mr. Robinson refers to in 
his history, has it; and yet our historian ventures to leave it out, 
and say not a word about the omission. In his translation also, 
he has, in several instances, perverted the sense of the original 
and given a false interpretation. These facts seem to induce a 
belief that our historian is not to be relied on as authority. S.ee 
Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. pt. 1. ch. 4. and pt. 2. ch. 11. v<k> 



§■7 

which, if satisfaction could not be obtained, he con- 
ceived the delay of baptism would be adviseable, 
namely, the condition, disposition and age of the person. 
Co7idition was expressive of privilege, covenant relation 
and security of religious instruction, and belonged 
exclusively to infant children and domestics in Chris- 
tian families; disposition marked the faith and religious 
habits of the person to be baptized, and could be 
possessed by adults only; and a^e was such a period 
of life as promised perseverance in religion, and re- 
quired in the candidate to be not only adult but of 
sober years and settled habits.^ Now where there was 
a total want of all those prerequisites, it was TertuUian's 
opinion, there was the clearest possible indication for 
the, delay of baptism; and this, says he, holds especial- 
ly towards little ones, i. e. the infants of strangers or 
deceased persons; which infants were entirely destitute 
of all the above grounds of qualification, having neither 
condition, disposition nor age. That he was speaking of 
the children of poor pagans, or such other infant or- 
phans as w^ere destitute of natural guardians, appears 
from the circumstance of their having sponsors, who 
were not then, as they became afterwards, merely 
nominal, but real undertakers for unprotected children, 
whose office it was to watch over their morals and edu- 
cation, and also from what he observes in the same 
chapter concerning the temptations peculiar to persons 
of this class, particularly to exposed virgi?is and wan- 
dering widows, for whom he thought baptism unsafe 
till they had either married or had attained to the 
gift -of continency. TertulliaUy therefore, was not oppo- 
sing the baptism of infants born in the church, but 
those of strangers whose instruction and morality could 
have no adequate guarantee, and whose salvation, cis 
he conceived, would be put to great hazard by a pre- 
cipitate and premature baptism. It was the avowed 

* Vide Notas F. P», Jnm'i ad Terfnll. De B'aptismof c..^t8. 



68 

©{)inion of this Father, that as in baptism all past sin 
was washed away, and as that rite could be received 
but once in any person's life, there could be no con- 
ceivable remedy for sins committed after baptism; 
and consequently that such persons as should sin after 
baptism would expose themselves to the utmost dan- 
ger of eternal damnation.* On this principle, and none 
other, it was that he opposed the baptism of infants of 
the forementioned class and description, with respect 
to whom it was apprehended that the prospect of life 
and salvation might be jeopardized, if not destroyed. 
But on this very principle he unequivocally admits the 
baptism of the infants in question, when he says,*' What 
necessity is there, EXCEPT in very urgent cases, 
that the sponsors be brought into danger?" Where there 
was imminent danger of death he allows they ought 
to be baptized for the remission of sin (pristinge ca^ci- 
tatis) and the birth of the soul to God. 

That the view which I have here given of Tertullian's 
opinion concerning the baptism of children is strictly 
just, will farther appear from his exposition of 1 Cor. 
vii. 14. which I will proceed to lay before the reader, 
after advertising him, it was the decided judgment 
of this Father, that in the article of baptism the soul 
was i^egenerated to God; one or two instances of this 
kind will suffice. Thus in his treatise on the resurrec- 
tion of the body, he say 3, '* Why dost thou, O soul, 
contemn the body? None is so near to thee whom thou 
shouldest love next to thy God; none more thy fellow 

* Foelix sacramentum aq^ae nostras, quia ablutis delictis pris- 
tinaj cxcitatis, in vitam aeternan liberamur — Sed nos pisciculi 
secundum ip(^^vv nostrum Jesum Christum in aqua nascemur. Nee 
aliter quajn in aqua permanendo salvi sumus— -Semel ergo lava- 
crum inimus, semel delicta diluuntur. Quia ea iterari non oportet, 
Creterum Israel Judaeus quotidie lavat quia quotidie iniquinatur. 
Quod ne in nobis quoque factitaretur, propterea de vino lavacro 
definitum est. Foelix aqua quae semel abluit, quae ludibrio peccatori- 
bus non est,qnx non assiduitate sordium infecta rursus quos dituit 
iniquinat. De Baptismo c. 15. et aliis freq. 



^9 

than that which along with thee was regenerated te 
God, i. e. baptized."* On another occasion, having 
quoted Matt, xxviii, 19. he remarks, " In connection 
with this law, the restrictive sentence of Christ, except a 
man be regenerated of water and the Spirit he shall 
not enter into the kingdom of heaven, does perempto- 
rily bind over our faith to baptism,'']- With this doctrine 
in our eye, let us read the proposed comment of Ter. 
tullian, which is subjoined to some remarks which he 
makes on the native uncleanness of the Gentile children; 
all of whom he conceives to be born unclean; nay, ac- 
tually devoted to the devil by the idolatrous and abo- 
minable rites practised by the midwives and others 
about the time of their birth. " So there is no child 
born clean, that is, among the heathens. And hence, 
indeed, the apostle says, that when either party in the 
married state is sanctified, the offspring are born holy, 
as well by the prerogative of birth as by the discipline 
^f religious institution* ^ Else,' says he, ^ they would 
be born unclean;'* intending that the children of believ- 
ers should be considered as i^ designated to holiness, 
and by this also to salvation; consequently decidmg 
that by the pledges of this hope those marriages might 
be defended which he himself conceived ought to re- 
main undissolved. Indeed, deciding diiferently, he had 
been admonished by the definitive sentence of our Lord, 
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he can- 

* Quid anima invides carni? Nemo tarn proximus tihi quern 
post Dominum diligas, nemo magis frater tuus quam quaj tecum 
etiam in Deo nascitur. De Resur. Carnis, c. 63. 

t Fuerit salus retro per fidem nudam ante Domini passioriem 
et resurrectionem. At ubi fides aucta est credendi in nativitatem, 
passionem, resurrectionemque ejus, addita est ampliatio Sacra- 
mento, obsignatio baptismi, vesiimentum quodammodo fidei, quae 
retro erat nuda, nee potentiam habuit sine su i lege. Len enim tin- 
guendi imposita est, et forma przescripta. Ite (inquit) docite na- 
tionesv tinguentes eas in nomen Patris et Fiiii et Spiritus Sancti. 
Huic legi collata difinitio ilia: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et 
Spiritu, iion intrabit in reg:num coelo: am, obstrinxit fidem ad bap- 
tismi necessitatem. Ter. De Baptismo, Lib. c. i?. 



70 

il0't e-iiter into the kingdom of God; that is, heivilhiot be 
holy. Thus every soul is accounted as in Adam until it 
IS enrolled in Jesus Christ; and is still unclean until it is 
so enrolled^ and sinful, because unclean.''* HereTertul- 
lian contrasts the condition of the children of believers 
with that of the children of heathens: these were unclean 
by a diabolical devotion and the observance of idolatrous 
ceremonies; those were consecrated to God, and con- 
sidered as holy, no less from the privilege of birth than 
from the discipline of religion. But this holiness was 
in order to salvation; it was their regeneration to God, 
and came in the way of water baptism: for in no 
other way, as he here, and in numerous other places 
asserts, could any one become holy and regenerate. 
Indeed, he considers them as involved in sin by rela- 
tion to Adam until they are enrolled in Jesus Christy 
which can mean nothing else than their baptism. Thus 
it is seen that this Father explicitly recognises the 
baptism of infants at their birth, as the prevailing order 
and constitution of all Christian society at that day, in 
opposition to the deplorably wretched and ruinous con- 
dition of heathen children, whom he considered as seal- 
ed over to demons by a national^ hereditary ^ pub- 
lic ^n^ pi'ivate devotion, \ 

* Sic is^itur et Socratem piierum adhiic spiritus dsemoniacus in- 
venir. Sic et omnibus genii deputantur quod djcmonu nomen est, 
adeu nulla terme nativitas munda est, utique ethnicorum. Hinc 
enim et apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari 
ait. Tarn ex seminis prserogativa quann ex institutionis dispiplina. 
Cgeterum (inquit) immundi nascerentur; quasi designates tamen 
sanctitatis, ac per hoc etiam salutis, intelligi volens fidelium filios: 
ut hujus spei piQ;nora [1. pignore] matrimoniis qu£e retinenda 
censuerat putrocinainetur [I. patrocinaretur] Alioquin meminc- 
rat Doniinicx definitiones, Nisi quis nascatur ex aqua et spiritu, 
non introibit in regnum Dei, id est, non erit sanctus. Ita omnis 
anima eousque in Adam censetur, donee in Cliristo recenseatur: 
tamdin immunda, quamdiu recenseatur. Tertul. De Anima. Lib. 
cap. 39. 40. 

t The context of the passage just quoted is this: Ita omnis ido- 
latria (^bstetric^ nascuntur,.diim ipsi adhuc uteri infulis apud idola 



Indeed it is undeniable that if he believed at all in 
the sahation of infants, as we know he did, he must 
also have believed in their baptism; for in no other 
way did he admit the probability of salvation where 
•baptism was practicable. 

From the concise review now taken of TertuUian's 
opinion as to baptizing infants, it must be manifest to 
every impartial inquirer that he speaks of the practice 
as being uniformly and universally observed in the 
Christian church; that he made opposition to it in no 
other cases than such as, from want of condition and 
other favourable circumstances, seemed to put the sal- 
vation of the soul to extreme hazard, and consequent- 
ly that he is really to be considered as a decided wit- 
ness for, and not as an opposer of, the practice of bap- 
tizing infants. When there existed no security for the 
future good conduct of those infants offered for bap- 
tism, he thought it improper and dangerous to give it, 
except in very urgent cases, where threatened death im- 
peratively demanded such service: in all other cases 
he was the advocate and defender of the custom, and 
that too as what had been recommended by St. Paul. 

Sect. 2. The testimony of Origen is disposed of in 
the usual way by our historian, namely, by calling in 
question the correctness, or rather the genuineness of 
the Latin translations of his works, and asserting that 
the original works of this Father, now extant, contain 
nothing concerning the baptism of infants. 

On this subject our historian expresses himself in 
the following manner: *' The genuine Greek works 

confectis redimiti, genimina sua dsemoniorum candidata profiten- 
tur, dum in partu Lucince et Dianse ejulatur, dum per totam hebdo- 
madam Junoni mensa proponitur, dum ultima die fata scribunda ad- 
vocantur, dum prima etiam constitutis infantis super terram sta- 
tinx De3£ sacrum est. Quis non exinde aut totum filii caput reatui 
vovet, aut aliquem excipit crinem, aut tota novacula prosecat, aut 
sacrificio obligat, aut sacro obsignat, pro gentica, pro avita, pro 
publica aut privata devotione. Sic igitur, &;c. De Anima c. 39. 



72 

(o£ Origen) contain nothing in favour of infant bap- 
tism; but, on the contrary, baptism is always spoken 
of in relation to the adult. The spurious Latin pieces 
do speak in favour of infant baptism, but they scent 
strongly of forgery and seem to have been written after 
the Pelagian controversy." — " Indeed it is impossible 
to quote any thing conclusive in favour of infant bap- 
tism from Origen; because, as he held the preexistence 
of human souls, so he affirmed that, ' some souls be- 
fore they were born into the world, and before they 
were united to the body, had heard and been taught of 
the Father.'"* 

There is no good reason for rejecting as spurious 
the Latin pieces attributed to Origen. They are received 
as genuine by the w^hole learned world, except some 
of the Baptist writers, such as Tombs, Gale, Booth, 
and our author, whose interest and prejudices alike 
conspire to make them act the part they have done. 
But it deserves special notice, that M. Whiston, who 
was beyond doubt a man of as great erudition as any 
others whom the Baptists can boast, has admitted the 
genuineness of the works in question. 

The homilies on Leviticus and Joshua, and the 
Comments on the Epistle to the Romans, were trans- 
lated by Ruffinus. Whatever freedoms this trans- 
lator might have taken in rendering some parts of the 
Greek homilies on Leviticus, we know certainly that 
he could not have used any in the passage quoted by 
us in proof of infant baptism, for two reasons: first, be- 
cause the baptism of infants is spoken of by him in 
connection with the original sin of infants, a doctrine 
which it appears he denied, and of course would have 
been disposed to expunge rather than to have added 
passages containing it; and secondly, because that he 
is not charged with having done any thing of this kind 
by Jerome, who maintains a hot controversy with him 

* History of Baptism, p. 225. 



73 

^n this very subject. With respect to the Comments 
on the Epistle to the Romans, Ruffinus declares that 
he had " shortened his xvork one half^'''' consequently 
nothing could have been added.* And as to the homilies 
on Joshua, he solemnly assures the reader that he has 
faithfully rendered what he found in the Greek books 
of Origen, without either addition or omission.* Indeed 
Ruffinus had no temptation whatever to corrupt and in- 
terpolate Origen's works relative to the baptism of in- 
fants, which had never been matter of controversy 
prior to his own time, and which was then the univer- 
sal and uncontested practice of the whole church. Or 
had he attempted the supposed corruptions and inter- 
polations, would not his learned adversary, Jerome, 
have chastised him for it with eager severity, as he 
aimed to do with respect to his translation of Origen's 
Book of Principles? Yet this has not been done by 
Jerome or any other writer of eminence after him, 
either of ancient or modern times, Baptists excepted; 
and such being the fact, the credibility of these trans- 
lations remains fairly unquestionable. The translation 
of the Homilies on Luke were made by Jerome himself, 
and possesses every claim to confidence, m as much 
as it is mentioned by himself in the catalogue of his 
own works, and if we except Baptist writers, never 
was called in question as to authenticity by any man of 
learning, but Erasmus, who afterwards recanted his 
opinion. Let us now hear the testimony of Origen. 
Homilia 8. in Levit. c. 12. 
Audi David dicentem, in miquitatibus, inquit, con- 
ceptus sum, et in peccatis peperit me mater mea: 
ostendens quod qusscunque anima in carne nascatur, 
iniquitatis et peccati sorde polluitur: et propterea dic- 
tum esse illud quod jam superius memoravimus; quia 
nemo mundus a sorde, nee si unius diei fuerit vita 
ejus* Addi his etiam illud potest, ut requiratur quid 

* Peroratio in Horn, ad Romanos. 

K 



74 

causae sit, cum baptisma ecclesiae in remissionem peC- 
catorum detur, secundum ecclesiae observantiam etiam 
parvulis baptismum dari: cum utique si nihil esset in 
parvulis quod ad remissionem deberet et indulgen- 
tiam pertinere gratia baptismi superflua videretur. 

" Hear David speaking, ^Iwas,^s'dysht^ ^ conceived in 
iniquity^ and in sin did my mother bring ??2<?J^rM.-' showing 
that every soul that is born in the flesh is polluted with 
the filth of sin and iniquity: and that therefore that was 
said which we mentioned before, that none is clean 
from pollution, though his life be but of the length of 
one day. Besides all this, let it be considered, what is 
the reason that whereas the baptism of the church is 
given for the remission of sins, infants also are by the 
usage of the church baptized: when if there were no- 
thing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, 
the grace of baptism would be needless to them." 
Homilia in Lucam 14. 

Quod frequenter inter fratres quagritur, loci occa- 
sione commota (cofnmotus) retracto. Parvali bapti- 
zaiitur in remissionesm peccatorum. Quorum peccato- 
rum? vel quo tempore peccaverunt? aut quomodo po- 
test uUa lavacri in parvulis ratio subsistere, nisi juxta 
ilium sensumde quopaulo antediximus;nullusmundus 
a sorde, nee si unius diei quidem fuerit vita ejus su- 
per terram? Et quia per baptismi sacramentum nativi- 
tatis sordes deponuntur, propterea baptizantur et par- 
vuli. 

*' Having occasion given by this place, I will mention 
a matter which excites frequent inquiries among the 
brethren. Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. 
Of what sins? or when have they sinned? or how can any 
reason for baptism be alleged in their case, unless it be 
in conformity to the sense just now expressed, namely, 
that none is free from pollution, though his life be but 
the length of one day upon earth? and it is for that 
reason, because by the sacrament of baptism the pol- 



75 

iutions of our birth are taken away, that infants g^rt 
baptized.^'' 

Comment, in Epist. ad Romanos. Lib. 5. 

Denique et in lege pro illo qui natus fuerit, jubetur 
ofFerri hostia par turturum aut duo pulli colombini: 
cxquibusunusipro peccato, alius in holocaustomata: pro 
quo peccato ofFertur hie puUus unus? Nunquid nuper 
editus parvulus peccare potuit? Ettunchabetpeccatum, 
pro quo hostia jubetur ofFerri, a quo raundus negatur 
quis esse etsi unius diei fuerit vita ejus. De hoc ergo 
etiam David dixisse credendus est illud quod supra 
memoravimus; quia in peccato concepit me mater 
mea: secundum historiam enim nullum matris decla- 
ratur peccatum. Pro hoc et ecclesia ab apostolis tradi- 
tionem suscepit etiam parvulis baptismum dare. Scie- 
bant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa 
sunt divinorum, quia essent in omnibus genuinae sor- 
des peccati, quae per aquam et spiritum ablui deberent: 
propter quas etiam corpus ipsum corpus peccati no- 
minatur. 

'' And also in the law it is commanded that a sacri- 
fice be offered for every child that is born; a pair of tur- 
tle doves ^ or two young pigeons: of which one is for a 
sin offerings the other for a burnt offering. For what 
sin is this one pigeon offered? Can the child that is 
new bom have committed any sin? It has even then 
sin, for which the sacrifice is commanded to be offer- 
ed; from which even he whose life is of but one day is 
denied to be free. Of this sin David is to be supposed 
to have said that which we mentioned before; In sin 
did my mother conceive me: for there is in the history 
no account of any particular sin that his mother had 
committed. For this also it was that the church re- 
ceived a document or order from the apostles to give 
baptism to infants. For they to whom the divine mys- 
teries were committed, knew that there is in all per- 
sons that native pollution of sin, which must be cleans- 
ed by water and the Spirit: by reason of which the 
body itself is called the body ofsin,^"* 



76 

Horn. 9. in Josuam. 

After stating that the angels are supposed to be pre- 
sent at the administration of the holy sacrament he has 
this remark: 

Secundum Domini sententiam dicentis de infanti- 
bus (quod et tu fuisti infans in baptismo) quia angeli 
eorum semper vident faciem Patris mei qui in coelis est, 

"According to that saying of our Lord concerning in- 
fants (awe/ ^j^oz/ wast an infant whenthou wast baptized,) 
their afigels do always behold the face of my Father 
who is in heaven."* 

Such is the testimony which we derive from 
Origin, and such the credibility of the books from 
whrch it is taken: and when they are fairly stated, there 
can be no hesitation in averring that both the one and 
the other recommends itself to our confidence and be- 
lief by evidence entirely satisfactory. The objection made 
by Mr. Robinson to the credibility of Origen's tes- 
timony, on the ground of his belief of the preexistence 
of souls and their illumination before thev were united 
to the body, is as inconsistent as it is futile. He him- 
self quotes Tertullian and others, without hesitancy, who 
held opinions as absurd as these of Origen; and who, 
lask, ever thought that a per son was disqualified for writ- 
ing the truth because he might happen to entertain 
some false and whimsical notions concerning religion, 
Soame Jennyns believed in the preexistence of souls 
and several other absurd whimsies, yet the whole 
Christian world consider him a man of veracity, and 
admire his able and eloquent exhibitions of the evi- 
dences evincing the truth of Christianity. 

THE CHARACTER AND TESTIMONY OF CYPIUAN. 

Sect. 3. To do away the testimony of Cyprian an<J 
his college of bishops at Carthage a. d. 257. Mr. Robin- 

* See Wall's Hist, of Infapt Baptism. Pt. 1st, chap. 5. 



77 

spn takes a very extraordinary course of proceeding. 
He begins with quoting Salvian, a worthy but gloomy 
historian, who says of the Africans, that, ''In spite of 
their vain boasts of an orthodox faith, they were Pagans 
and blasphemers, who worshipped idols in secret^ and 
dedicated their children in their infancy to demons." 
p. 182. 

And with respect to Cyprian himself he pronounces 
him to be *' an ignorant fanatic and as great a tyrant as 
ever lived." p. 184. After presenting his reader w^ith 
this dark and even hideous representation of African 
Christians and their bishops, he proceeds to give a very 
highly charged picture of the savage manners and 
habits of the people in the district where Fidus livedo 
first in their Pagan and then in their Christian state: 
and particularly states, indeed attempts to prove, that 
soon after the propagation of Christianity among them, 
judaizing teachers found access to them, and intro- 
duced the idea that the Jewish scriptures were as much 
a rule of life as the four gospels; not forgetting to abuse 
in a copious stream of acrimonious invective on Pau- 
linus and Optatus of Milevi, men who unquestion- 
ably deserved better treatment. P. 189, 190. 

After these preparatory, and, shall I say, veri/ Chins- 
tian efforts to blast the reputation of these African 
Christians, and especially those bishops w^hose testi- 
mony in favour of infant baptism has reached our 
times, the learned historian makes the grand stroke by 
which he hopes to prostrate for ever the testimony of 
Cyprian and his associate bishops. " Collecting into 
one point of view," says he, " all the forementioned 
facts, the eye fixes upon one Fidus, the honest bishop 
of a company of Christians in a country place of Africa^ 
where some of his neighbours bought, stole, captivated 
and burnt children: where some of his flock returned 
to Paganism, others intermarried with Pagan families; 
and went with them into the old practices of sacrifice- 
ing, as formerly, children to their gods. Himself filled 



78 

with Jewish ideas of dedicating children to the true 
God, and marking them with circumcision, and send- 
ing for advice to Cyprian, exactly such another con- 
fused genius as himself. Is it a very improbable conjec- 
ture, that Fidus bethoughthimself of baptizing new born 
infants as an expedient to save the lives of the lambs of 
the flock?" p. 193. What, and have all those formida- 
ble preparations of the historian issued at last in beg- 
ging a conjecture not very improbable? This, truly, is 
to go a mumping with a lame leg in quest of a conclu- 
sion. But even those facts, upon which he would ex- 
pect us to allow his conjecture, are not exactly so. 
There is, as every one knows who is ever so little ac- 
quainted with the history of those times, a good deal 
of high colouring, a very strong exhibition of shade 
without the light, in the portrait he has given of the ec- 
clesiastical affairs of that period. Cyprian, for instance, 
was a very different person from what he is represent- 
ed to have been by Mr. Robinson. When delineated 
by the enlightened and impartial pen of Moshein^, he 
claims our admiration as one who, being " a man of 
the most eminent abilities, and flowing eloquence, 
stands foremost in the list of Latin writers. His letters, 
and indeed most of his works, breathe such a noble 
and pathetic spirit of piety that it is impossible to 
read them without the w^armest feelings of enthusi- 
asm."* 

Dr. Lardner , whom Mr. Robinson names with great in- 
terest as well as conscious pride, speaks of the bishop of 
Carthage as " a man of bright natural parts and no in- 
considerable acquired abilities;" and having warmly 
eulogized his diligence, stedfastness, and martyred 
firmness, he adds, '' The whole tenor of Cyprian's life 
after his conversion, peaceable, charitable, and benefi- 
cent to men of all characters in distress, and the man- 
ner of his death undaunted, willing, and ready, witli- 
out seeking it, are a very valuable testimony in behalf 

* Moshgim's Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 264, 



"79 

of the truth and excellence of the principles of the 
Christian religion." — ^' He was a man made for busi- 
hess, had a diligent and active spirit, and talents equal 
to the charge wherewith he was intrusted; and I 
would add, that he was not only a man of great au- 
thority in his lifetime, but likewise of great reputation 
afterwards."* With these honorable testimonies to the 
worth of Cyprian before his eyes, the reader will know 
how to estimate the man who, under the imposing cha- 
racter of a historian, has the temerity to call this venera- 
ble martyr *' an ignorant fanatic and as great a tyrant 
as ever livedP'* 

Neither did Optatus and Paulinus, (who indeed be- 
long to another period) merit the heavy unqualified 
imputations, the illiberal censures which Mr. Robin- 
son endeavours to heap on their memory. They were 
persons of reputation and real worth; but as their tes- 
timony is not very important to this controversy, and 
as they were contemporaneous with others who give a 
clear and unambiguous testimony to the practice of 
baptizing infants, I will offer no formal defence in their 
favour against the calumnies of Mr. Robinson. Verv 
different too was the state of morals and religion in 
Africa at the time of Cyprian and Fidus from what it 
ijeems to be in the disgusting caricature of Mr. Ro- 
binson. 

After making these very splendid efforts at abusing 
an innocent but less informed age of the church, and 
some reputable names of Christian antiquity, our his- 
torian proceeds to assail Cyprian's testimony in direct 
terms by saying, " There are several reasons to suspect 
that the letter to Fidus is all a forgery." p. 195. And 
why then did he not inform his reader what those seve^ 
ral reasons were? Did they exist in fact, it might, it 
ought to have been done. But no; as to that he is close 
a^ the grave itself, nor dares to disclose them. The 

* Crcdibil. of Ga^p, Hist, vaj. i. p. 142, 143, 



80 

truth is, if he really had any, they were such as he fear- 
ed, and justly feaied, would not bear the light; for 
rarely, indeed, has the genuineness of any historical do- 
cument been more amply attested than this letter of 
Cyprian. Both Augustin and Jerome quote it express- 
ly as a matter of high authority in the controversies of 
the day. 

Jerome speaks of him thus: 

Beatus quidam Cyprianus non aliquod decretum 
condens novum: sed ecciesia fidem firmissimam ser- 
vans, ad corrigendum eos qui putabant ante octavum 
diem nativitatis, non esse pcirvulum baptizandum: non 
earnem sed animam dixit esse perdendum: etmox na- 
tum rite baptizare posse, cum suis quibusdam episco- 
pis censuit. Opera Hieron. Tom. 9. p. 164. 

" To correct certain persons who alleged that an in- 
fant ought not to be baptized before the eighth day after 
nativity, Blessed Cyprian declared not that no 
hody^ but that no soul was to be lost, and with a num- 
ber of his fellow bishops decreed that an infant might 
ivith propriety he baptized immediately after the birth; 
not thereby forming some new canon, but observing 
the most jirmly established faith of the church,'*'^ 

Augustin refers to Cyprian's letter in his Ep. 28. ad 
Hieronym. thus: 

'' Blessed Cyprian not making any new decree, 
but expressing the firm faith of the church, in refuting 
those who thought a child must not be baptized before 
the eig-lith day said, not that no fleshy but that 7io soul 
f^ust be lost.^^ 

In Lib. 4. contra duas Epist. Pelagianorum c. 8. he 
makes three large citations from it. 

Again m Lib, 3. de peccatorum meritis et remissione 
c. 5. he distinctly mentions this letter of Cyprian, and 
then cites three paragraphs verbatim out of it. And in 
a public discourse at Carthage against Pelagianism, 
Aup:ustin quotes a part of this epistle, telling the peo- 
ple that they were the words of Cyprian, an ancient 



81 

5ishop of Carthage.^ And from the time of Augus- 
tin till this hom^ no person has ever questioned the 
genuineness of Cj'prian's letter, except a few choice 
spirits, such as Danvers and Robinson. The more 
learned and candid of the Baptists, as Tombs, Gill and 
Whiston, admit its authenticity and incorruptness 
without hesitation. 

But mark the new attitude assumed by this wiley 
historian! ^' It doth not appear that infants were bap- 
tized at Carthage, or any where else, except in the coun- 
try where Fidus lived; and there, because, says Cypri- 
an, as Jesus came to save men's lives, we ought to do 
all we can to favour his kind intention, and, like the 
prophet, recal to life children under a sentence of death. 
An opinion of the council that Fidus ought to baptize 
infants, is very far from proving that the advisers, who 
were in diiferent circumstances, did so." p. 198, 199« 

Quo teneam vultus Protea nodo? 

Whoever has read the letter of Cyprian will know 
that the ideas here advanced by Mr. Robinson are ut- 
terly incorrect and impossible. Mr. Robinson would 
induce the reader to believe that the whole affair be- 
tween Fidus and the council was to introduce an ex- 
pedient to save natural life; yet nothing was ever 
farther from truth. The council, in support of their 
judgment, which was that infants of every age, even 
those but just born, should be baptized, allege that the 
mercy and grace of God are to be denied to no hu- 
man creature; that Christ himself had said, he came to 
save, not to destroy the souls of men; that consequently 
it greatly behoved them to take care that not a single 
soul should be lost; that whatsoever was produced by 
divine power (alluding to the child in the several 
stages of foetal life down to the birth) was to be consi- 
dered as perfect from the majesty and work of the maker 
God, and therefore that it was the decisive expres- 

* See Wall's Jlistorv of Infant Baptism, Part I. chap. VJF 

I. 



p 

sion of the sacred'scriptures, that amongst ajl of human 
kmd, whether infants or adults, there should be but 
one equal distribution of the divine benefit. But I will 
present my reader with an extract of this far-famed 
letter, and let him judge for himself. 

Cypriani Epist. 64. ad Fidum— Cyprianus et 
Caeteri CoUegae, qui in concilio aifuerunt, numero 66, 
Fido fratri, salutem — Legimus literas tuas, frater caris- 
sime, quibus significasti de Victore quodam presby- 
tero, 8icc. 

Quantum vero ad causam infantiuui pertinet, quos 
dixisti, intra secundum vel tertium diem, quo nati 
sunt, constitutos, baptizari non oportere; et consi- 
derandum esse legem circumcisionis antiquae; ut 
intra octavum diem eum qui natus est bapti- 
zandum et sanctificandum non putares; longe aliud in 
concilio nostro omnibus visum est. In hoc enim quod 
tw putabas esse faciendum, nemo consensit; sed uni- 
versi potius judicavimus, nulli hominum nato miseri- 
trordiam Dei et gratiam denegandam. Nam cum Do- 
minus in evangelio suo dicat; Filius hominis non ve- 
nit animas hominum perdere, sed salvare; quantum in 
nobis est, si fieri potest, nulla anima perdenda est. 
Quid enim ei deest, qui semel in utero Dei manibus 
formatus est? Nobis enim atque oculis nostris secun- 
dum dierum secularium currum accipere qui nati sunt, 
incrementum videntur. Caeterum quajcunque a Deo 
fiunt, Dei factoris maj estate et opere perfecta sunt. 
Esse denique apud omnes, sive infantis, sive majoris 
natu nnum divini muneris aequalitatem declarat nobis 
divinae scripturas fides — propter quod neminem puta- 
mus a gratia consequenda impediendum esse ea lege^ 
quaj jam statuta est, nee spiritualem circumcisionem 
impediri carnali circumcisione debere, sed omnem om- 
nino admittendum esse ad gratiam Christi, quando et 
Petrus in Actis Apostolorum loquatur et dicat, Domi- 
nus mihi dixit neminem hominem communem dicen- 
dum et ioimundum. Caeterum si homines impedire 



83 

aliquid ad gratiae coasecutionem possit; magis adult4Ds^ 
et provectos et majores natu possent impedire peccata 
graviora. Porro autem si etiam gravissimis delictori- 
bus, et in Deum multum ante peccantibus, cum pos- 
tea crediderint, remissa peccatorum datur, et a bap- 
tismo atque a gratia nemo prohibetur: quanto magis 
prohiberi non debet infans, qui recens natus nihil pec* 
cavit, nisi quod secundum Adam carnaliter natus con- 
tagium mortis antiquce prima nativitate contraxit? 
qui ad remissam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipso 
facilius accedit, quod iUi remittuntur non propria sed 
aliena peccata. Et idcirco, frater carissime, hasc fuit in 
concilio, nostra sententia, a baptismo atque a gratia 
Dei, qui omnibus et misericors etbenignus etpiusest, 
neminem per nos debere prohiberi. Quod cum circa 
universos observandum sit atque retinendum; magis 
circa infantes ipsos et recens natos observandum puta- 
mus, Sec. 

" Cyprian and the associate bishops present at the 
council, sixty six in number, to Fidus our brother, 
greeting. 

'* We read your letter, very dear brother, in which 
you write of one Victor a presbyter," &c. 

** But with respect to the case of infants, which, as 
you have stated, should not be baptized within the 
second and third day after their birth; and as to what 
you would also suggest, that the rule of the ancient 
circumcision is to be observed, requiring that none is 
to be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day 
after nativity; it has appeared Jar otherwise to us all in 
our council. For as to what you had conceived should 
be done in this affair, not a single person thought with 
you; but we all gave it as our opinion that the mercy 
and grace of God should be denied to none of human 
kind. For since our Lord in his gospel says, " The son 
of man came not to destroy men^s souls, but to save 
them:^^ as much as possible then should we exert our 
best endeavours that no soul should be lost. For what 



84 

deficiency can there be in the human creature that has 
been formed in the womb by the hands of the Al- 
mighty? — Such existences appear to us to attain in- 
crease in the course of the days of the aa orld. But 
whatsoever thmgs are the product of the Deity derive 
perfection from the majesty and work of God the 
maker. The authority of inspiration informs us of the 
single equahty of the divine gift to all persons, whether 
infants or aduhs." — '' On which account we conceive 
that no person is to be prevented from obtaining grace 
by the law which is now established, and that the 
spiritual circumcision is not to be restricted by the cir- 
cumcision whicli is of the flesh: but that persons of 
every age and condition are to be admitted to the grace 
of Christ: since Peter, speaking in the Acts of the Apos- 
tles, declares, and our Lord has said, that no person is to 
be called common or unclean. But if an}^ thing can pre- 
vent men from receiving this grace, it should seem 
rather that highly aggravated sins ought to shut out 
the adult and aged from obtaining it. And yet more, 
if to the vilest offenders, and to those who have once 
greatly sinned against God, the remission of sin is 
given when they shall have believed; and if from bap- 
tism and grace no person is to be excluded; by how 
much the more should the infant be exempt from pro- 
hibition, ^vho being but just born has never sinned 
otherwise than, as sprung by a carnal birth from Adam, 
he has contracted, in the earliest moments of nativity, 
the contagion of death originally threatened? and who 
for this very reason attains the more easily the remis- 
sion of sins, because they are not his own but others' 
sins which are remitted to him. Therefore, very dear 
brother, this has been our decision in council, \S\2Xfrom 
baptism and the grace of God^ who is merciful and be- 
nign and affectionate to all, no person is to be prohibited 
by us. Which rule, seeing it ought to be regarded and 
attended to w^ith respect to men in general, should, as 
we apprehend, be more especially observed in refer- 



85 

ence to mere infants and to those too who are but just 
born.'''' 

This abstract of Cyprian's letter will show the reader 
how little reason Mr. Robinson had to say, the whole 
aftair between Fidiis and the council was a contriv- 
ance to save the natural lives of children. Cyprian and 
his fellow bishops, no less than Fidus, on that occasion, 
act upon the acknowledged existence of infant baptism; 
*' not thereby making any new decree," as Augustin 
and Jerome both declare, '' but retaming the faith of 
the church before most firmly established! The question 
proposed by Fidus to the council was not whether a 
child, or children, now for the first time, might be 
baptized in a certain district of Africa, when, accord- 
ing to the supposition, the practice w^as no w^iere else 
observed; but whether they might be baptized before 
the eighth day after the birth? — To this question they 
gave a large answer, asserting that it was lawful, if 
otherwise convenient, to baptize tlie child as soon as 
it was born; and making it evident, by the w^hole of 
their reasonings, that the practice of baptizing infants 
w^as at that time universally prevalent in the church. 
So every honest unprejudiced man must understand 
them. 

Besides, it is to be recollected that Cyprian bears a 
similar testimony in other parts of his work. In his 
book De lapsis-i circa Medium^ Sect, 7. and also 'inLibro 
3. Testimoniorum ad Quirinum c. 25. infant baptism 
is clearly implied as being the general practice of the 
church at that time: but the passages are too long 
to be inserted here.* There is yet another testimony 
of this Father, M Demet, prope finem^ wdiich deserves 
to be noticed. Cyprian having introduced Ezek. ix, 
6. where the commission to destroy enjoins the exe- 
cutioners of God's vengeance to slay all^ old and youngs 
maids c^wdLiTTLECHiLDREN, who were distitute of the 
mark of God on their foreheads, expounds it as relate 

* See WaU*s History of Infant Baptism. Pt. I. Ch. VI 



86 

ing to Christians, and says, " that none can now escape 
but those only that are reiiati et signo Christi signatiy 
baptized and signed with Christ's mark." Mr. Wall 
employs this passage to prove that the sign of the 
cross was, in Cyprian's time, associated with baptism; 
but if it was, it is the first we hear of it in church his- 
tory. Baptism itself is Christ's mark. 

It is thus we see that the integrity of Cyprian's tes- 
timony remains unimpaired, notwithstanding the la- 
boured assaults of this ingenious but unfair and tob 
deeply prejudiced writer. 

THE CHARACTER AND TESTIMONY OF AUGUSTIN. 

Sect. 4. The essay of our learned historian at putting 
down the testimony of Augustin is in a high degree 
reprehensible. It is a mere stream of calumnious re- 
mark, in which he gives vent to the unsparing efFu- 
sions of all the prejudice and sectarian hate which 
rankled at his heart. The crimination of this Father he 
seeks with unbounded ardour, and to effect it rakes into 
existence all the filth of either ancient or modern times 
for something with which to stain the pure fame of the 
bishop of Hippo. He represents Augustin as a paltry 
school- master, a dealer in '' scraps of learning," and 
asserts that '* he understood neither Greek nor He- 
brew." He informs his reader that " Bayle, in his life 
of Augustin, quotes some French writers who prove 
him to be a constant hard drinker." Le Clerc helps 
the eager historian to some abuse, and Voltaire can 
make it out quite to his liking, that Augustin held two 
opinions respecting persecution, the one for and the 
other against it^ his mind fluctuating just as he was i7i 
or out of power. In a word, he thus finishes the pic- 
ture: '* Augustin was a crafty irritated man, hemmed 
in, disappointed and foiled by able opponents; passion 
for power was his ruling disposition, after his sensual 
appetites had spent their force in debauchery;"* and 
* Hist. Bap. p. 203, 205, 21 7^ 



87 

in his Ecclesiastical Researches he calls him " a bittet 
and bloody fanatic. ^"^^ The falsehood of this dark and 
horrific portrait will be manifest from the deliberate- 
judgment of several writers, who cannot be accused of 
partiality, and whose literary eminence none will dare 
to dispute. Mr. Gibbon thus draws his character: 
'* The youth of Augustin liad been stained by the 
vices and errors which he so ingenuously confesses; 
but from the moment of his conversion to that of his 
death, the manners of the bishop of Hippo were pure 
and austere; and the most conspicuous of his virtues 
was an ardent zeal against heretics of evfery denomina- 
tion; the Manicheans, the Donatists, and the Pelagians, 
against whom he waged a perpetual controversy" — 
** According to the judgment of the most impartial 
critics, the superficial learning of Augustin was con- 
fined to the Latin language; and his style, though 
sometimes animated by the eloquence of passion, is 
usually clouded by false and affected rhetoric. But he 
possessed a strong, capacious, and argumentative 
mind; he boldly sounded the dark abyss of grace, pre- 
destination, free will and original sin; ' and the rigid 
system of Christianity which he framed or restored^ has 
been entertained, with public applause and secret reluc- 
tance, by the Latin church, "t Dr. Lardner, who had 
explored Christian antiquity with vast ability, and who, 
of course, was incomparably better fitted to judge con- 
cerning him than Gibbon, pronounces *' Augustin a wit 
of the first order and a principal glory of Africa." He 
commends his mildness and moderation towards the 
Manicheans, against whom he contended and by whom 
he had been entangled; and maintained, by incontrovert- 
ible facts, that he understood Greek well enough to read 
the Greek scriptures and occasionally to translate a pas- 
sage from the Greek divines; { which, to say no more^ 

* Eccl. Res. p. 202. 

t Decl. and Fall of Rom. Empire, Vol. IV. p. 221, 222. 
\ See Lardner's Cred. Gosp. Hist Vol. III. p. 399, 544. Vol. V. 
p. 81 — 84. 



88 

was quite as much literature as fell to the share of his 
c^ccuser, Mr. Robinson. Augustin is described by Eras- 
mus, who was himself a prodigy of talent and learn- 
ing, as a specimen of incomparable sweetness of tem- 
per, and of great acuteness and penetration of mind.* 

Let me state, also, what has been said of the talents 
and virtues of this illustrious Father by Mosheim. 
" The fail e of Augustin, bishop of Hippo, in Africa, 
filled the whole Christian world; and not without rea- 
son, as a variety of great and shining qualities were 
united in the character of that illustrious man. A sub- 
lime genius, an uninterrupted and zealous pursuit of 
truth, an indefatigable application, an invincible pa- 
tience, a sincere piety, and a subtile and lively wit con- 
spired to establish his fame upon the most lasting foun- 
dation."! 

The character of Augustin is thus drawn by the bi- 
shop of St. Asaph, a prelate preeminently distinguish- 
ed for his talents, literature and candour. " He was in 
his day a burning and shining light; and he has been 
ever since, by his writings, one of the brightest lumi- 
naries of the Latin church. A man of warm unaffected 
piety, of the greatest natural talents, and the highest 
attainments; exercised in the assiduous study of the 
Holy Scriptures, replete with sacred learning, and widi- 
al deeply versed m that Pagan lore, in which, however 
it may have been of late shamefully calumniated, the 
soundest divines have always been the greatest pro- 
ficients. In polite literature he was the rival, in science 
and philosophy the superior of his great conteqriporary, 
St. Jerome." 

* The words of Erasmus, as quoted by Lardner. to which scarcer 
ly any translation can do justice, are these: Ingenii telicitas prorsus 
ei'at incomparabilis, sive spectes, acumen, vel obscurissima facile 
penetrans, sive capacis memoriae fidem, sive vim quandam mentis 
indefaiii^abilem. Ad docenduo^ semper erat paratus, non aliter 
quam avidus negotiator ad lucrum. Aderat interim miranda quse- 
4afri animi lenitas. 

t Moslieim's Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 552, 



^9 

Thus it is seen, that the name of this Father is en- 
rolled with lustre on the page of history. Even the 
hand of the infidel Gibbon binds a wreath of honour 
round his venerable brow. To be praised by the pen 
of Lardner is praise indeed; a writer who was distin- 
guished for his candour, patience of research, love of 
truth, and coolness of judgmjent. Erasmus and Mo^ 
sheim are immortalizing advocates, and who would 
not wish to be praised, I may safely ask, by the cele- 
brated RofFens? But what are we to think of Mr. Ro- 
binson, who, with a spirit more fell than infidelity it- 
self possesses, has made a laboured and insidious at- 
tempt to traduce the character of the far-famed Au- 
gustin? Yes, sure enough, what are we to think? A 
Christian minister, and yet less just, less candid than 
an infidel — a Christian minister, and yet '^ an accuser 
of the brethren!" 

So long as the light and verity of history guard the 
fame of Augustin ag-ainst detraction, so long they will 
continue to reflect infamy upon his defamer, whether a 
Petit, a Voltaire, or a Robinson. 

It is easy to see the real design of our historian in 
pouring calumny upon the memory of this Father. 
Augustin had opposed the Manicheans whom Mr. Ro- 
binson has taken into fellowship with British Unitarian 
Baptists; he had waged incessant war with the Pela» 
gians and Donatists, whom our learned historian takes 
the liberty to say were Anabaptists, and in whose reli- 
gious tenets he saw an approximation to his own 
creed; he had borne repeated and solemn testimonies 
to the practice of infant baptism, as something univer- 
sally observed in the church, and as being of apostolical 
origin. These were crimes never to be forgiven; and 
the only way left for destroying the force of Augustin's 
testimony, was to assail his reputation by detraction^ 
and thus to reduce, if possible, his high estimation in 
the world, and blast for ever his well earned fanie. 
This is all Mr. JRobinson could hope to do, and iie. 

M 



9P 

attempts nothing more. But the fame of Augusthi, 
like a bulwark, impregnable and resistless on ajl 
points, mocks the feebleness of his assaults, and lifts 
its towering head for immortality. 

See then the strength of the ground we occupy in 
this controversy! Augustin's testimony in favour of 
the custom of baptizing infants cannot be impeached, 
cannot be destroyed. It presents the stability, the 
prominence, the majesty of the promontory, which de- 
fies alike the surge that beats on its base and the 
tempest that bursts on its summit; it cannot be shaken. 

Out of the numerous and very clear attestations 
borne by this Father to the practice of baptizing in- 
fants, I will select a few only, and those such as have 
not been already published in my sermon on baptism. 

Augustinus De baptismo contra Donatistas Lib, 4. 
prope ad finem. 

Sicut autem in latrone, quia per necessitatem bap- 
tismus defuit, perfecta salus est; quia per pietatem 
spiritualiter affuit: sic et cum ipso praesto est, si per ne- 
cessitatem desit quod latroni affuit, perficitur sa]\ >. 
Quod traditum tenet vmiversitas ecclesiae cum parvuli 
infantes baptizantur; qui certe nondum possunt corde 
credere ad justitiam, et ore confiteri ad salutem, quod 
latro potuit: quinetiam flendo et vagiendo cum in eis 
mysterium celebratur; ipsis mysticis vocibus obstre- 
punt. Et tamen nulkis Christianorum dixerit eos ina- 
niter baptizari. 

Et si quisquam in hac re divinam authoritatem 
quasrat quanquam quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nee 
Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est, non nisi 
auctoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur;- 
tamen veraciter conjicere possumus quidvaleat in par- 
vulis baptismi sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis 
quam prior populus accepit. 

'' And as the thief, who by necessity went without 
baptism, was saved, because by his piety he had it 
T5])iritually: so whejre baptism is had, though the party 



91 

by necessity go Mdthout that (faith) which the thiei 
had, yet he is saved. Which the whole body of the 
church holcfs as delivered to them in the case of little 
infants baptized^ who certainly cannot yet beUeve with 
the heait to righteousness, or confess with the mouth 
unto salvation, as the thief could; nay, by their crying 
and noise, while the sacrament is administering, they 
disturb the holy mysteries; and yet no Christian man will 
say they are baptized to no purpose. And if any one 
do ask for divine authority in this matter, though that 
which the whole church practises, and which has not 
been instituted by councils^ but was ever in use, is very 
reasonably believed to be no other than a thing deliver- 
ed {or ordered) by the authority of the apostles; yet we 
may besides take a true estimate, how much the sacra- 
ment of baptism does avail infants, by the circumcision 
which God's former people received." 

DELIBEROARBRITRIO, LIB.3. C.23. 

Quo loco etiam illud perscrutari homines isolent, sa- 
cramentum Baptismi Christi quid parvulis prosit; cum 
eo accepto plerunque moriuntur priusquam ex eo 
quidquam cognoscere potuerunt. 

" On which head men are wont to ask this question 
also; w^hat good the sacrament of Christ's baptism 
does to infants? whereas after they have received it, 
they often die before they are able to understand any 
thing of it. 

DE GENESI AD LITERAM, LIB. 10. C. 23. 

Consuetudo tamen matris ecclesiae in baptizandis 
parvulis nequaquam spernenda est, neque ullo modo 
superflua deputanda, nee omnino credenda nisi ApostQ- 
lica esset traditio. 

*' But the custom of our mother, the church, in 
baptizing infants must not be disregarded, nor be ac- 
counted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradi- 
tion (or order) of the apostles." 



Sect. 5. Miscellaneous Matters, 
It is really curious to observe with what facility thk 
writer marches on to his point, in the way of conjec- 
ture, suggestion and assumption. " It should seem," 
says he, *' that the baptism of children was first practised 
by a small obscure sect of Gnostics called Cainites, Cai- 
anites, orGaianites," P. 247,248. It should seeml-r-yt^^ 
but we want proof that such was the fact, and it was 
the historian's misfortune to have none. To conceal 
this defect, he amuses his reader by tracing the rise 
and diffusion of Gnosticism. He remarks that it rose 
cut of the oriental philosophy^ that St, Paul consid- 
ered it at Corinth as the serpent in Paradise^ 2 Cor, 
xi. 2, 3, 4, and that the Gnostics were the heretical , 
teachers mentioned by St. John, 1 Ep. ii. 18, 19. That^ 
St. Paul had Gnosticism in his eye when he wrote th^ 
forementioned passage is as far from being ascertained, 
as that he considered it the serpent in paradise. The 
first errors at Corinth were an accommodation of the 
gospel to the Grecian philosophy and Judaism. St. 
John had various sorts of heretics, as well as Gnostics, 
in view, when he wrote his epistle, as the Docetas, Ce- 
rinthians, &:c. But what has the history of the origin and 
evolution of Gnosticism to do in this controversy? In 
doing so, however, he makes (and most probably in im- 
itation of Dr. Priestley's worthy example) another asser- 
tion which is very far from being coincident with fact: 
it is, that the Gnostics, '' during the two first centuries, 
were the only heretics." Every person acquainted with 
the New Testament and the history of early opinions in 
the Christian world, knows the fact to be otherwise. Du- 
ring the apostolic age there were several sects; the 
Docetae or phantasiastae, who denied tl^e humanity of 
Christ; the Cerinthians and Ebionites, who rejected the 
doctrine of his divinity, but admitted his humanity; and 
the Nicolaitans, or Gnostics, who affirmed that no- 
thing but the mere knoivledge of God arid Christ was 
nscessary to salvation; for against these heresies have 



9.3 

St. John aiid other apostles expressly written. Beside 
these, there were the Marcionites, Encratites, Carpocra- 
tians, Valentians,and various other sects, which appear- 
ed in the two first centuries,* as in the year 1 76, or 177, 
Irenasus, in his treatise against heretics, book 1. give^ 
them, contrary to what Mr. Robinson asserts, a distinct 
classification. TertuUian, who wTOte but a few years 
later, does the same thing; for while he writes against 
several branches of the Gnostic sect, he attacks other 
i>ectai'ies, who had no connection whatever with Gnos- 
tics. The Nazarenes also were a sect entirely and 
originally distinguished from the Ebionites and others 
now mentioned, in as much as their opinions were or- 
thodox with respect to the trinity and other important 
doctrines. This has been amply evinced in Dr. Jamie- 
son's triumphant reply to Dr. Priestley's History of 
Early Opinio NS.f The author's bold assertion was 
made and defended probably with a view to shield his 

* Should it be said that these sects originated from the Gnos- 
tics, I shall have no difficulty in admitting the fact: but still I may- 
remark, that though they had one common origin, they were 
nevertheless distinct sects, differing not so much in doctrine as in 
discipline and manners. Thus the Marcionites, Encratites and 
other sects were remarkable for an austere rigid manner of lite, 
while the Carpocratians and others were very dissolute. They all 
denied Christ's divinity, and almost every distinguishing doctrine 
of Christianity. 

t The western Socinian Baptists, New-lights, Halcyonists, Sha- 
kers, &c. are weak enough to think Dr. Priestley has triumphed 
in the controversy which he so ardently waged against the doc- 
trines of grace: but let them read Dr. Jamieson*s Vindication of 
the Doctrine of Scripture and of The Primitive Faith 
concerning The Deity of Christ, in reply to Dr. Priestley's 
History of Early Opinions, and they will sigh if not blush for their 
champion and their cause. This very luminous and elaborate work 
perfectly paralyzed the gaseous doctor; for though it was the very 
thing he had explicitly challenged, and though he lived several 
years after its publication, yet he never dared to fulfil his pledge 
to the public by answenng it. In a calm, and undisturbed retreat 
upon the Susquehanna, he wrote and published several considera^ 
ble works, but nothing like an answer to Dr. Jamieson's vindica.- 
tfan. 



94 

brother Manicheans and other sec tsfrotti the imputatioo 
of heresy; and thus, nke Dr. Priestley, to render the 
idea popular, or at least plausible, that the Socinian 
creed was the one adopted by Christians generally in 
the two first centuries. But as Dr. Jamieson has pro. 
ven in the work referred to, that both the statement 
and the inference are false; proving beyond the power 
of cavil, that there were other heretics besides the 
Gnostics, and that the doctrines of Christians through- 
out the whole world, in primitive times, were evan- 
gelical, in opposition to Socinianism. 

He again remarks, '' The Caianites seem to be of 
the Egyptian, not of the Asian class of Gnostics: 
but the first book in defence of the efficacy of bap- 
tism, and against the baptism of little ones, is direct- 
ed against both Caianites of Egypt and Quintillianists 
of Greece.^' In proof of this statement he refers to 
Tertullian's Book De Baptismo, c. 1.; but, as it 
should seem, rather unfortunately for the historian, there 
is not the shadow of evidence there, or any where else, 
that this book was written against either the Caianites 
of Egypt or the Quintillianists of Greece. This book 
on baptism was written to arrest the progress of a 
heresy which had been founded by Quintilla, a female 
heresiarch and preacher who had sprung up among, 
cr emerged from the Caianites, and, as Tertullian says, 
had seduced a great number of persons into the be- 
lief of her doctrines. As to the insinuation of the au- 
thor, that she either introduced the baptism of little 
ones, or at least contemplated the measure, there is 
not the semblance of truth in it. On the contrary, it 
is certain that one of the most prominent dogmas of 
this extravagant and fanatical woman was, that exter- 
nal baptism was wholly unnecessary^ and that faith 
alone was sufficient fof salvation*^ Neither is it 

* It is indeed true, that Tertullian, speaking^ of the practice of 
a female's teaching and baptizing, has these words, c. 17. Fetulan- 
I'la autein mtil'ieruvi qu(£ usurpavit doctre^ ^tique non etiam tin- 



95 

true that this book was written against the baptism 
of little ones, as Mr. Robinson groundlessly asserts. 
We have already seen that Tertuiiian opposed only 
the hasty baptism of orphans, or the children of slaves 
or poor pagans, where sponsors became necessary 
and that in ordinary cases he approved of, and reason- 
ed from the practice of baptizing infants as a fact gei-e- 
rally prevalent in the Christian world. 

But indeed it is quite unnecessary to attempt a 
refutation of the author's assertions; for after alx his 
conjectures, guesses and specious displays of histori- 
cal fact, he is weak enough to acknowledge he knows 
nothing about the matter. Mark his words! ** It is im- 
possible to say any thing upon the baptism of children 
amon^ the Gnostics, when and where it originutedy 

guendijus sibi pariet^ nisU si qu<£ nova bestia avenerit sbnilis firis^ 
tina: ut quemadmodum ilia bafitismum aiiferebat^ it a aliqua per 
se eum comferat. But the only sentence here which can refer to 
Quintilla, Junius reads thus: Si nova (nimirum,mulier) bestir vene- 
rit similis pnstince; and very justly remarks, that the author's us- 
ing the word pristine seems to intimate that the reference was to 
Prisca or Priscilla, who, with Maximilla, was a' prophetess of the 
heretical Montanus and the Prepuzians. 

This, indeed, shows very clearly that Tertuiiian was not then 
speaking of Quintilla. Besides this, there is abundant evidence m 
the preceding chapters, that he was writing against various heresies 
destructive of baptism; first treating of the subject generally, and 
afterwards responding to distinct questions; Dixlmus quantum me- 
diocritate nostrae licuit de universis^ qua baptismi religionem s^ru- 
unty nunc ad reliquum statum ejus ceque-, ut potero^ progrediar de 
guastiunculis quibusdam, c. 10. After pursuing the plan thus pro- 
posed, he says again, c. 13. Hie ergo scelestissime illi provocanc 
quxstiones; and having dispatched these very mischievous questions 
in the succeeding chapters, he comes, in the 1 7th chapter, to con- 
clude his subject by giving some advice relative to the practice of 
administering and receiving baptism: Superest ad concludendam 
materiolam de observatione quoque dandi et accipiendi baptismum 
co?nmonefacere. 

Now it is evident that every pernicious error which he contro- 
verts, and every wicVed question to which he responds could not 
have existed in the creed of Quintilla and her disciples, as any one 
may see who reads this- treatise respecting baptism. But wbaf 



96 

ivhether it were only proposed^ or really practised, hbw 
far ii extended, and by what means, or at what moment 
it found its way into the CathoUc church: but there is 
no hazard in affirming that, towards the close of the 
fourth century, it was first brought into public by Gre- 
gory Nazianzen, that it became agreeable to the clergy, 
as a relief from the inconveniencies of the catachumen 
state; that it was the standing mode of baptizing, for 
many certuries, in both the Greek and Roman Catho- 
lic churches; and that it became popular in proportion 
as fraud beguiled, or as civil power forced the reluc- 
tant laity to yield to it. Ibid. 

Our learned historian, after all his proteuform move- 
ments, is compelled to own that he really had no in- 
formation relating to the practice of infant baptism 
among the Gnostics; either as to the when and the 

seems to me decisive is, that although Tertullian accuses Quintilla 
of having attempted to teach, he utters not a syllable of her un- 
dertaking to baptize; and indeed the reverse is manifest. 

His words, taken from c. i. (the very one to which Mr. RobinSon 
refers us for proof) are these: Atque adeo nuper conversata istic 
quaedam de Caiana hseresi vipera venenatissima doctrina sua ple- 
rosque rapuit, imprimis baptismum destruens plane secundam na- 
turam: nam fere viperae et aspides, ipsique reguli serpentes arida 
et inaquosa sectantur. Sed nos pisciculi secundum iy,6vv nostrum 
Jesum Christum in aqua nascimur. Nee aliter quam in aqua per- 
manendo salvi sumus. Ita Quintilla monstrosissima, cui nee inte- 
gre quidem docendi jus erat, optimenotat'pisciculos necare de aqua 
auferans. 

" And thus, indeed, it happened: a certain viperess of the Cainian 
heresy, who, having turned about in that manner, led away a mul- 
titude of people with her most poisonous doctrine; a first object of 
which was obviously the destruction of baptism in its substance: 
just as vipers, asps and basilisks usuaWy frequent dry and uniuater- 
ed t'lces. But we, little fish, are regenerated in the ivater accor- 
idin t to our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Son of God. Nor are we 
otherwise safe than by continuing in the water. Thus Quintilla, 
that monster of a woman, to whom the right of teaching does not 
propeiiy belong, makes it an object of special aim to kill the little 
nsh, takhig them out of the nuater" N. B. i^Jivi is a name taken from 
the Sybilline verses, and vulgarly applied to Jesus Christ, thus^ », 



97 

where it had originated, or whether it were only pro- 
posed, or were really practised; and yet he would, 
contrary to fact, contrary to his own conviction, insinu- 
ate, and even affect to prove from Tertullian, that it 
was first practised by a small obscure sect of Gnos- 
tics called Cainites, Such strange conduct, to say 
the least, would seem to infuse a doubt that the au- 
thor did not possess all that candour and impartiality 
which became a historian. 

He is equally uncertain, it seems, " by what means 
and at what moment it found its way into the Catholio 
church J''^ Indeed, this confession is what I had not 
looked for, and does but little credit to the author, 
when it is recollected that he asserts, p. 198, 199. in 
reference to the affair of Fidus, " It is a fact that dedi- 
cating children to God by baptism was first heard of 
in Africa; ' ' and still more particularly, ' ' It doth not appear 
that infants were baptized at Carthage, or any where 
else, except in the country where Fidus lived." He 
had already fixed the time, the place, and the means 
of its getting into the Catholic church, and yet he here 
declares it to be impossible to say any thing about it. 
This has very much the aspect of that ornamental at- 
tribute of style called self-contradiction, and will excite 
an apprehension, in most readers, that the learned 
historian, after all his laborious research, was utterly at 
a loss to know what to say on the subject, and that from 
the poverty of his materials he was compelled to sketch 
annals without facts, documents, or dates. 

But whatever uncertainty Mr. Robinson may 
choose to express, or whatever agri somnia vana, fic- 
kle distempered fancies he may throw out as facts, 
it is nevertheless a well established fact, that infant 
baptism was practised in the Catholic church before 
the council of Carthage, not only in Africa, but also 
in Asia and Europe; the proof of which I will briefly 
lay before my readers in the subjoined details arid 
documents. 

N 



98 

Not to mention the testimony of Clement and Her- 
mas, which have considerable claim to notice, as being 
very ancient and giving a pretty distinct report, Jus- 
tin Martyr, as early as the year 140, alludes to the fact 
of infant baptism in these words, which are taken from 
his first apology; 

KoC'i TToKKoi rivig )i itoKKob) i^i^KOVTovroci aoci s|3J*oju.vjjcov- 

" Several persons among us, of sixty and seventy 
years old, and of both sexes, who were discipled or 
made disciples to Christ in their childhood, do continue 
micorrupted.''* 

In his dialogue with Trypho, the application of 
baptism to persons of every age is very clearly im- 
plied, thus: 

Kac) ^fXiig ot ^)o(> tovto Tt^Q(r^(a^^(Tcc\Ti^ rev ©giuJ", q\j rocvriiv 

^v 'Evca^ ii ol ofj^oiot i(p\jAa^acv; i^f^iTg ^l hot, fiaC7rri<r(xccrof 
dvryjvy iTTuSoiv Ufjioe^^rcoKo) iyzyoviTfjiiVy ^loi to thiog to ttol^ol 
TOO ©gou iKoli^Q^iv yi '^ocifiv £(p€Tov oixoitag hccfA^xviiv. 

" We also, who by him have had access to God, 
have not received this carnal circumcision, but the 
spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like 
him observed. And we have received by baptism 
by the mercy of God, because we were sinners: and 

IT IS ENJOINED TO ALL PERSONS TO RECEIVE IT 

IN THE SAME WAY," namely, in baptism. And in 
another work we meet with this question; '* ^hi/, if 
circumcision be a good thing, we do not use it as well 
as the Jews didP^ which he thus answers; *' PFe are 
circumcised by baptism with Chrisfs circumcision,^"^ 

These short extracts will make it obvious that when 
Justin wrote, which was ab/out forty years after the 
apostolic age, there were considerable numbers of per- 
sons, both men and women, who had been made disci- 

* Justin M. Apol. 1 (vulgo 2da.) prope ab initio, Dialog, cum 
Try phone et Quest, ad orthodox. 



99 

pies in infancy sixty and seventy years before that time, 
that is, as far back in the apostohc age as the year seventy 
or eighty of the Christian era, and consequently must 
have been baptized, for to none other than disciples 
was baptism ever given; that it was the opinion of Jus- 
tin as well as the Christians of that age, that the spiri- 
tual circumcision, which was identified ivith baptism, 
succeeded the circumcision ^f the flesh, and that it was 
enjoined to all persons, and c6nsequently to infants as 
well as to adults, to receive the spiritual circumcision or 
baptism, in as much as all, both old and young, were de- 
filed with original sin,* and could be saved no other 
way than by that spiritual circumcision which was re- 
ceived by baptism; and that as the Jews received the 
former circumcision, which applied equally to infants 
and adults, so Christians at that period were circumcis- 
ed by baptism with Chrisfs circumcision, and of course 
their infant children must have shared also in this 
spiritual circumcision or baptism. These inferences 

* That Justin Martyr believed in the doctrine of original sin, 
he himself has declared, when, speaking of the-undertaking of the 
Saviour, he says, " He did this for mankind vi^hich by Adam was 
fallen under death, and under the guile of the serpent, beside the 
particular cause which each man has of sinning." Dial, cum Try- 
phone. And as to the manner of man's deliverance from the sin 
of his nature, he says explicitly that it was by baptism. " Then 
they are brought by us to some place where there is water, and 
they are regenerated according to this rite of regeneration by 
which we ourselves were regenerated; for then they are washed 
with water in the name of the Father and Lord of all things, and 
of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ 
says " unless you be regenerated, you cannot enter into the kingdom 
of heaven," and every body knows it is impossible for those that 
are once generated (or born) to enter again into their mother's 
womb." Just. Apolo. 1st (Vulgo 2da.) ad Antoninum Pium. From a 
comparison of these two passages I am allowed to infer, that it 
was clearly impossible that Justin should not have believed in in- 
fant as well as adult regeneration or baptism, if he believed at all, 
as we know he did, in the salvation of infants. These and some of 
the succeeding testimonies are taken from Mr. Wairs History of 
Infant Baptism. 



100 

are fair, and, as I think, unavoidable. The objection 
which is opposed by Baptist writers to the first men- 
tioned fact, namely, that iKTron^m does often signify 
more than mere infancy, and consequently that the 
persons mentioned by Justin might have been such 
children when they were made disciples as could be 
taught and believe for themselves, has really no 
weight, because the word, in its first and most com- 
mon meaning, signifies infants, and of course ought to 
be so understood, unless sufiicient reason appear from 
Justin's use of it to induce us to reject such meaning 
and adopt a less common or figurative signification: 
and with Baptists, who stickle for primary meanings, 
this reason should be omnipotent. 

About the year 1 76, and most probably as early as 
167, Ireneeus, who had been bred in Asia under the 
instruction of Polycarp the disciple of St, John, but 
was then bishop of Lyons in France, delivers a very 
convincing testimony to the practice of baptizing in- 
fants. 

Irenaeus adversus Hereses, lib. 2. c. 39. 

Omnes enim venit per semet ipsum salvare; omnes 
inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes, et 
parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores. 

" He (Christ) came to save all persons by himself; all, 
I say, who are regenerated unto God, (baptized) in- 
fants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and el- 
der persons. 

The phrase regenerated to God was in the language 
of this Father, and all other writers of that age, descrip- 
tive of the fact of having been baptized. In no other 
sense did they ever use it. Thus Irenseus always uses 
the words: as for instance. Adv. Hereses, lib. 3. c. 19. 
Et iterum, potestatem regenerationis in Deum deman- 
dans discipulis, dicebat eos: Euntes docete omnes 
gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii et 
Spiritus Sancti — " And again Christ confiding to his 
disciples the authority of regenerating utito God, said 



101 

unto them, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
the name of the Father^ and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost, "" About forty years before the time of Irenseus, 
we see Justin Martyr more than once use the word 
regenerate for baptize: thus, ETrg^Tat fltyovTati vcp' >j^wv 
h^&t, vici)^ £5"/, noil r^oTTov oivavyivvr.ffiag ov kqci jjjlcsk acuto) 
aviyivvtjB-t^fXiv, oivocyivvcayroci, Ett' ovo{/,ocTog yoi^ tow Hxt^os 
Tuv oAwv ii A€(r7roTou @iov, k^ tou IcwTyj^Of >jjwwv I)j(rou X^if ou, 

XOti rivgUjWaTO? flty/oK TO €V Tft» VcTotT* TO Tg AOVT^OV TTOiOVVTOti. 

Apol. prima (vulgo 2da) ad Antoninum Pium . 

" Then they are brought by us to some place where 
there is water; and they are regenerated according to 
this rite of regeneration^ by which we ourselves were 
regenerated; for then they are washed with water in 
the name of God the Father and Lord of all things, and 
of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit." 
And he soon afterwards uses it in the same sense. Sec 
my Sermon on Baptism. 

In the passages already quoted from Tertullian, the 
reader will recollect that the word nascor (to be bom) 
is often used by that Father for to be baptized; but 
in one instance he uses the very word re nascor {to 
be regenerated) which is the one here employed 
by Irenaeus to describe being baptized. This writer 
very frequently speaks of martyrdom as a baptism, 
calling it lavacrum sanguinis, the baptism of blood, 
and always uses the very same phrases to describe it 
which he does in describing the baptism of water: and 
in his Scorpiacum ad Gnosticos, c. 15^ he thus speaks 
of St. Paul's martyrdom or baptism of blood: T4inc 
Paulus civitatis Romanas consequitur nativitatem, 
Quum illic martyrii renascitur generositate. " Then 
Paul obtains regeneration (baptism) at the city of 
Rome, when there he is regenerated (baptized) by a 
glorious martyrdom." We have already seen Cyprian 
describe baptism by the phrase renati et signo Christi 
signatiy '' regenerated and m_arked with the sign of 
Christ." i. e. baptized and marked v/ith the name of 



102 

Christ according to Rev. vii. 2, 3. and xiv. 1. Indeed 
the Fathers alwaj's apply the word in that sense, and 
cite John iii. 5. to prove the propriety of the applica- 
tion, as might be shown in various instances from 
Clemens Aiexandrinus, Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome, 
and Austin. And besides, Irenaeus testifies to the bap- 
tism of infants by treating of spiritual circumcision as 
succeeding to the circumcision of the flesh, and call- 
ing it the circumcision of Christ, or baptism. 

We have already reviewed at large the testimony of 
Tertullian and of Origen, and need not therefore re- 
peat it here, as it is in the recollection of the reader, or 
can easily be recalled. Let us now apply the foremen- 
tioned facts to the case before us, and form our esti- 
mate. Justin Martyr, once a Heathen philosopher, and 
respectable for his talents and erudition, is converted 
to the faith of Christianity thirty years after the apos- 
tles; had seen and been conversant with many Chris- 
tians of the apostolic age, and consequently must have 
been adequately informed respecting the usages of the 
primitive church, delivered about forty years after the 
apostles an unembarrassed testimony in favour of infant 
baptism. Irenseus, born according to Dodwell in the 
year 97 after Christ, and consequently within the apos- 
tolic age, educated in Asia by Polycarp, St. John's 
disciple, and a man of genius, learning and research, 
and the contemporary of Justin Martyr; and after his 
becoming bishop of Lyons, about sixty-seven years 
after the apostles, giv^s the world clear and satisfactory 
attestations to the fact of baptizing infants. Tertullian, 
the contemporary of Irfenasus, but younger, and living 
to the year 120, a man of sublime genius, and flowing 
eloquence, and literaiy distinction, at first a Heathen 
philosopher, and afterwards a Christian minister and 
presbyter at Carthage, asserts, in the clearest and most 
satisfactory manner, the generally prevailing custom of 
baptizing infants about 100 years after the apostles — 



103 

and then Origen, whom Dr. Lardner eulogizes as " a 
bright light of the church and 07ie of those rare person- 
ages that have done honour to human nature, '^'^ the con- 
temporary of Tertullian, eminent for his talents and 
literary acquirements, and one who was bred at Al- 
exandria in Egypt, travelled through Italy, Greece, 
Cappadocia, and Arabia, and spent the greater part of 
his life in Syria and Palestine, and who of course was 
abundantly qualified for saying what the usages of the 
church universal were, has, about a hundred and ten 
years after the apostles, given many explicit testimo- 
nies in favour of infant baptism. It is therefore a con- 
clusion confirmed by a regular ^nd incorrupt series of 
historical facts, that infant baptism had an existence in 
the Catholic church, from the times of the apostles 
down to the period of Cyprian, whose testimony is 
full in proof that infant baptism was the prevailing 
custom of the Catholic church in his day. He was 
born in 185, and died 254, and consequently was con- 
temporary, not only with Tertullian, but also with 
Cyprian. Before Origen it is probable I should have 
mentioned the author of the Apostolical Constitutions, 
who bears a very explicit testimony to infant baptism, 
as the standing custom of his time, in these words: 
" Baptize your infant Sy and bring them up in the nur- 
ture and admonition of the Lord; for he says, suffer 
little children to come unto me and forbid them not." 
This work is supposed to have been wTitten in the 
close of the second or in the beginning of the third 
century, and indeed there is internal evidence to make 
it certain that it must have been written before the age 
of Origen. Exceptions, I know, have been taken to 
the genuineness and date of this book; but it is now and 
always has been received as authority by the best and 
most learned writers. How far the opinion of Dr. 
Jamieson, who quotes it in his controversy with Dr. 
Priestley, may have weight with Baptist readers, I can- 
not tell; but I well know that the opinion of Grotius, 



104 

which is in favour of its genuineness, ought to be para- 
mount evidence with our Baptist brethren.* 

Thus we see the certain and widely extended ex- 
istence of infant baptism before and at the time of 
Cyprian, and that too from the very age of the apos- 
tles, by a train of historical evidence which can- 
not be questioned without implicating the identity of 
the Holy Scriptures now used with those in the hands 
of the apostlesi for it is by those very witnesses that 
we ascertain ours to be the same scriptures which 
were used in the apostolical age, and from that down 
to the period of the council at Carthage. 

Our author alleges, however, *' there can be no 
hazard in affirming that towards the close of the fourth 
century it was first brought into public by Gregory 
Nazianzen." But upon what evidence does this asser- 
tion of the learned historian rest? — On a passage from 
Gregory Nazianzen's fortieth oration, I presume, for 
it is all he condescends to quote; which passage Piedo- 
baptists usually cite for a very different purpose, and 
cannot prove the first introduction of infant baptism be- 
fore the public. JVo da?iger in affirming! What! whenthc 
Apologies of Justin Martyr, the books of Iren^us, the 
writings of Tertullian and the Apostolic Constitutions 
had long ere this been before the world? — When 
the Homilies and Comments of the famous Origen 
had given publicity to the practice as early as 220 
— When our learned historian, who at one time would 
induce a belief that the baptism of infants originated in 
Africa in the district of Fidus, at another that it was 
practised by a small obscure sect of Gnostics called 
Caianites, and then declared that it was impossible to 
say any thing about it, when and where it originated, 
or by what means, or when it found its way into the 
Catholic church, goes on to say, that there is no ha- 

* See Dr. Jamieson*s Vindication, vol. ii. p. 230. Grotius in 
Matt. xix. where the above passage from the Apostolical Constitu- 
tions is quoted; 



105 

zard in affirming that towards^ the close of the fourth 
eentury it was first brought into public by Gregory 
Nazianzen, No hazard, indeed, when the volumi- 
nous and learned works of Origen were known to the 
whole Christian world! — When Cyprian^s popular and 
animating writings had, as early as 157, bestowed no- 
toriety and celebrity on the practice, and which had 
been admired and read every where in the Catholic 
church! 

But beside the evidence already adduced to expose 
the hazard and folly of such affirmation, I will now 
bring forward other evidence still more convincing. 
Ambrose had asserted the propriety of infant baptism, 
and even introduced the fact as the basis of argument 
in the controversies of the day, some considerable time 
before the close of the fourth century. Speaking of the 
Pelagian hypothesis, which, among other things, set 
forth this, that the injury done by Adam to his poste- 
rity was exemplo, non transitu^ rather from example, 
than by derivation of evil, does on the admission of such 
principle infer that it would involve evacuatio baptis- 
matis parvulorum " the nullity of the baptism of in- 
fants." 

In his L. 2. de Abraham, patriarcha, c. 11. he has 
these words: '' For a very good reason does the law 
command the males to be circumcised in the begin- 
ning of infancy, even the bond slave born in the house; 
because as circumcision is from infancy, so is the dis- 
ease. No time ought to be void of the remedy, be- 
cause none is void of guilt, Sec." and a little after he 
adds, ** Neither a proselyte that is old^ nor an infant 
born in the house, is excepted; because every age is 
obnoxious to sin, and therefore every age is proper for 
the sacrament." This he applies to spiritual circum- 
cision and baptism, 2ind then subjoins, '' both the home 
born and the foreigner, the just and the sinful, must 
be circumcised by the forgiveness of sin, so as not to 
practise sin any more: for no person comes to the 

O 



106 

kingdom of heaven but by the sacrament of baptism." 
He afterwards closes the paragraph with these words: 
Nisi enim quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, 
non potest introire in regnum Dei. Utique nullum 
excipit: non infantem non aliqua pserventum necessi- 
tate. Habeant tamen illam opertam poenarum immuni- 
tatem, nescio an habeant regni honorem. " For unless 
a person be born again of water ^ and of the Holy Spi- 
rit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. You see 
he excepts no persons, not an infants not one that is 
hindered by any unavoidable accident. But suppose 
that such have that freedom from punishment, which 
is not clear, yet I question whether they shall have the 
honour of the kingdom." 

And about the period at which, or,at most soon after the 
period which Mr. Robinson fixes for its public intro- 
duction, what a blaze of evidence bursts on the scene of 
inquiry, when we open the writings of Chrysostom, 
Augustin and Jerome, as well as the concessions of 
their opponents, namely, Pelagius, Celestius, the Do- 
natists and others! The reader will allow the following 
examples not only to establish the fact of infant bap- 
tism as being generally known and as generally practis- 
ed at the very period which our author considers the 
epoch of its public introduction; but also to throw back 
the illumination of this period upon the preceding ages. 
First, then, Chrysostom, who died in 407, and conse- 
quently must have flourished and written in the close of 
the fourth century. In his homily to the Neophyti, we 
find these observations: ^^JVe baptize children, although 
they have no sin;" that is actual sin, as Augustin 
proves in opposition to the Pelagians. Again, in his 
40th Homily on Genesis, he observes, '^ Circumcision 
was to be given on the eighth day: but baptism hath no 
determinate time, but it is lawful that one in infancy, 
or one in middle age, or one in old age do receive it." 

These passages, with several others equally pointed, 
Imply that the custom was commonly observed. 



107 

The testimony of Augustin has already been laid 
before the readers and need not be repeated, 

Jerome, who died in 420, and must, as he lived to a 
great age, haA^e flourished in his vigor about the very 
time Mr. Robinson says Gregory delivered his famous 
oration on baptism, abundantly testifies to the same 
fact. Passing over most of the citations v/hich might 
be made from this father, I will proceed to present the 
reader with one or two which, from the circumstances 
giving them birth, become authorities of great mo- 
ment. In his Homilia in Evangel, Matt, having quo- 
ted John vi. 58. " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of 
man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," he re- 
marks. Quod testimonium contra Pelagii blasphemias 
evidentissimum atque validissimum est, qui asserere 
arreptaimpietate presumit, non propter vitam, sed prop^ 
ter regnum coelorum Baptismum parvulos conferren- 
dum, *' which is a most clear and potent testimony 
against the blasphemies of Pelagius, who with daring 
impiety presumes to assert, that baptism is to be con- 
ferred upon infants, not for salvation, but for the king- 
dom of heaven." 

In his Dialogues written to expose Pelagianism, 
where the name Critobulus represents a Pelagian^ and 
Atticus a person belonging to the Catholic churchy we 
find the following passage: 

^* Crito. Tell me, I beseech you, and free line from 
all doubt; for what reason are infants baptized? 

"Atticus. That in baptism their sins may be for- 
given. 

*' Crito. What sin have they incuiTcd? Is any one 
loosed that never was bound? 

'* Atticus, having offered arguments and proof to 
establish the point in question, goes on to answer, " All 
persons are held obnoxious, either by their own, or by 
their forefather Adam's sin. He that is an infant is in 
baptism loosed from the bond of his forefather; he that 
is of age to understand, is by the blood of Christ free4 



108 

both from his own bond, and also that which is derived 
from another. And tliat you may not think that I un- 
derstand this in a heretical [or heterodox] sense; the 
blessed Martyr Cyprian (whom you pretend to hav€ 
imitated in collecting into order some places of scrip- 
ture) in the epistle which he writes to bishop Fidus, 
about the baptizing of infants, says thus: " If, then, the 
greatest oflenders, and they that have grievously sinned 
against God before, have, when they afterwards come to 
believe, forgiveness of their sins, and no person is kept 
off from baptism and grace; how much less reason is 
there to refuse an infant, who, being newly born, has 
no sin, save that, being descended from Adam, ac- 
cording to the flesh, he has from his very birth con- 
tracted the contagion of the death anciently threaten- 
ed," &c.* 

'' That holy and accompHshed person, bishop Au- 
gustin, wrote some time ago to Marcellinus (who was 
afterwards, though innocent, put to death by the heretics 
on pretence that he had a hand in Heraclius's usurpa- 
tion) two books concerning the baptism of infants, 
against your heresy by which you would maintain 
that infants are baptized, not for Xh^ forgiveness ofsins^ 
but for the kingdom of heaven^ according to that which 
is written in the gospel, Except a person be born 
agaift of water and the Spirit^ he cannot enter into the 
kingdom of heaven,^'' — '* This one thing I will say, that 
this discourse may at last have an end; either you 
must set forth a new creed, and after the Father, the 
Son and the Holy Ghost, baptize infants unto the king- 
dom of heaven; or else, if you acknowledge one bap- 
tism for infants and for grown persons, you must own 
that infants are to be baptized for the forgiveness of 
sins." 

These extracts make a few things unquestionably 
manifest, namely, that the letter of Cyprian is to be 

* lie goes on to recite verbatim the whole of the epistle to the 
end; as it is given page 83. 



109 

considered not only as genuine, but as expressing the 
general sense of the orthodox or Catholic church res- 
pecting original sin and the baptism of infants, both 
at the time of its being addressed to Fidus, and after- 
wards do\vii to the time of Jerome; that the Pelagians, 
as well as the orthodox, baptized infants, though they 
differed with respect to the design or object of such 
baptism; the first contending that it was their passport 
into the kingdom of heaven, the last, that it w^as for 
their personal regeneration and the remission of sins; 
and that both parties believed in one baptism only for 
adults and infants. 

These facts are asserted by both Jerome and Au- 
gustin and confessed by their opponents, Celesti- 
us and Pelagius, as will appear in the subjoined do- 
cuments. 

In the council held at Carthage A. D. 412. Celes- 
tius stood his trial for heresy. From the acts of that coun- 
cil, as cited by Augustin, lib. de peccato originali, c. 
3, 4. let me take this extract: 

*'AuRELius, the bishop, said, ' Let the rest of the 
charge be read;"^ and there was read, * That infants 
when they are born are in the same state that Adam 
ivas in before his transgression,^ 

"AuRELius, the bishop, said. Did you ever teach so, 
Celestius, that infants when they are born are i?i the 
same state^^ Sec. 

"Celestius said, * Let him explain how he means; 
Before his transgression^'^ &c. 

*'AuRELius, the bishop, said, 'Whether the state of 
infants now to be baptized be such as Adam'^s was be- 
fore his transgression; or whether they do derive the 
guilt of transgression from the same sinful origin frx)m 
whence they are born? This is what the Deacon Pauli- 
nus would hear from you,'' 

" Paulinus, the deacon, said, ' Whether he has taught 
that or not ^ let him deny,"* 

' ■ CjE L E s T I u s said , ' / told you before concerning 



110 

the derivation of sin ^ that I have heard several in the 
Catholic church deny it; (he had just before named 
Ruffinus as one who denied it) and some I have heard 
affirm it. It is a matter of question [or controversy] 
not of heresy. As for infants, i always said, 

THAT THEY STAND IN NEED OF BAPTISM, AND 
THAT THEY OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED." 

Peiagius, in his creed, which he addressed with a 
letter to Innocent, has this article: 

Baptismum unum tenemus, quod iisdem sacramen- 
ti verbis in infantibus quibus etiam in majoribus 
asserimus esse celebrandum. " We hold one baptism^ 
which we say ought to be administered with the same 
sacramental words to infants as it is to elder persons." 
Apud Augustin, Operis imperfecti, lib. 4. c. 87. 

In the letter referred to above as cited by Augustin 
De peccato originali, c. 17, 18. and reported by Mr. 
Wall in connection, Peiagius thus expresses himself: 
*' Men slander me as if / denied the sacrament of 
baptism to infants, or did promise the kingdom of 
heaven to some persons without the redemption of 
Christ, which is a thing that I never heard, no not 
even any wicked heretic say. For who is there so ig 
norant of that which is read in the gospel, as (I need not 
say to affirm this, but) in any heedless way, to say such 
a thing, or even have such a thought? In a word, who 
can be so impious as to hinder infants from being baptiz- 
ed, and born again in Christ, and so make them miss 
of the kingdom of heaven? since our Saviour has said 
that none can enter i?ito the kingdom of heaven that is 
not born again of water and the Holy Spirit. Who is 
then so impious as to refuse to a?t infant of whatsoever 
age the common redemption of mankind^ and tQ, hin- 
der him that is born to an uncertain life from being 
born again to an everlasting and certain one?" 

Celestius, also, in the libellus fideiot draught 
of faith, which he presented to Zozinuis, strongly 
avows infant baptism in these words: 



Ill 

Infantes autera debere baptizari in remissionem 
peccatorum secundum regulum universalis ecclesise, et 
secundum Evangelii sententiam coniitemur; quiaDomi- 
nus statuit regnum cselorum non nisi baptizatis posse 
conferri; quod quia vires naturas non habent, conferre 
necesse est per gratia^ libertatem. In remissionem 
autem peccatorum baptizandos infantes non idcirco 
diximus ut peccatum ex traduce fir mare videamur, 
quod longe catholico sensu alienum est. 

" We own that infants ought, according to the 

RULE OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, aUd aCCOfding tO 

the sentence of the gospel, to be baptized for the for- 
giveness of sins, because our Lord has determined that 
the kingdom of heaven cannot be conferred upon any 
but baptiezd persons; which, because it is a thing that 
nature cannot give, it is needful to give it by the liber- 
ty of grace. But when we say that infants are to be bap- 
tized for forgiveness of sins, we do not say it with such 
intent as that we would seem to confirm the opinion 
of sin being by derivation, which is a thing far from the 
Catholic sense." Aug. De peccato originali, c. 5» 

Mr. Robinson ventures to say, p. 208. ^' The most 
probable opinion is, that Pelagians did deny the bap- 
tism, but not the salvation of infants;*' and elsewhere 
he affects to consider them as anabaptists and oppo- 
sers of infant baptism. The evidence already introduced 
shows sufficiently indeed, the falsehood of such asser- 
tions; yet it may not be amiss to add something more. 
Augustininhis treatise on the guilt and remission of sins 
and the baptism of infants, book 6. says, ** I do not 
remember that I ever heard any other thing from any 
christians that received the Old or New Testament, non 
solutn in catholica ecclesia, verum etiam in qualibet 
haresi vel schismate constitutis, neither from such as 
were of the Catholic church, nor from such as belonged 
to any sect or schism — I do not remember that I ever 
read otherwise in any writer that I could ever find, treat- 
ing of these matters, that followed the canonical scripture 



112 

or did mean, or did pretend to do so. From whence it is 
that this trouble is started up upon us I know not; but a 
little while ago, when I was thereat Carthage, I just curso- 
rily heard some transient discourse of some people that 
were talking, that infants are not baptized for that rea- 
son that they may receive remission of sins, but that they 
may be sanctified in Christ ^ This citation, as well as 
others which precede it, shows very clearly that even 
to deny baptism for the remission of sins to infants was 
a new doctrine every where among Christians who re- 
ceived the scriptures, both within and without the Ca- 
tholic church; and that even when this novel doctrine 
was started by the Pelagians, they still believed that in- 
fants should be baptized in order to sanctification in 
Christ. 

Augustin, in the same work, lib. 1. de pec. merit, et 
remis. c. 26. says, Parvulos baptizandos esse Pelagiani 
concedunt, qui contra authoritatem universae ecclesiae 
proculdubio per Dominum et Apostolostraditam veni- 
re non possunt. ^' That infants should be baptized the 
Pelagians readily concede to us, because they are un- 
able to contravene the authority of the church universal, 
derived beyond doubt through our Lord and the 
apostles.^'' 

It is equally certain, also, that the Donatists, whom 
Mr. Robinson pronounces " Trinitarian Baptists," p. 
216. did baptize infants. Beside the evidence already 
presented to the reader, I will add a canon of the coun- 
cil of Carthage, which is directly in point. 
Concilii Carthag. tertii Can. 48. 

De Donatistis, placuitutconsulamus fratres et consa- 
cerdotes nostros Siricium et Simplicianum de solis in- 
fantibus qui baptizantur penes eosdem, ne [leg. anj 
quod suo non fecerunt judicio, cum ad Ecclesiam Dei 
salubri proposito fuerint conversi, parentum illos error 
impediat, ne provehantur sacri aitaris ministri. 

'' In reference to the Donatists, it is resolved, that 
we do ask the advice of our brethren and fellow bi- 



113 

shops Siricius and Simplicianus, concerning those 
only who are in infancy baptized among them; whether 
in that which they liave not done by their own judg- 
ment, the error of their parents shall hinder them, that 
when they by a wholesome purpose shall be converted 
to the church of God, they may not be promoted to be 
ministers of the holy altar." 

Neither is it true that the Novatians were Antipedo- 
baptists, but the contrary, as is clearly inferrible from 
the evidence already adduced. These sects and some 
others rebaptized those who went over to their com- 
munion; yet it was not because they had been baptized 
in infancy, but because they had been baptized by un° 
authorized persons. 

A short abstract of the evidence in favour of infant 
baptism which is accessible at this period is all the 
limits assigned this work allows me to introduce. Yet 
what. can be more interesting than the testimony of 
five of the greatest men of that age, Chrysostom, Au- 
gustin and Jerome on one side of a great contro- 
versy, Pelagius and Celestius on the other; the former 
sserting it to be the general usage of the church 
originally delivered to it and ever since practised; the 
latter promptly and cordially confessing the fact: one of 
them (and he a heretic) saying Nunquam se vel impium 
aliquem hareticum audisse — *'That he had never heard 
of any, not even the most impious sectary," who ven- 
tured to deny it; the other, that it was performed ac- 
cordingtothcRULE of the church universal, and 
the decisive law of the gospel. At any rate, the evi- 
dence is quite sufficient to enable the candid inquirer 
to appreciate the historical accuracy of Mr. Robinson, 
when he asserts that it is impossible to say how infant 
baptism found its way into the Catholic church, and 
that there can be no hazard in affirming it was near the 
close of the fourth century that it was first brought into 
public by Gregory Nazianzen! From the testimonies just 
reviewed, as well as from that which has been preYioUS»» 



114 

\y recited, it is as satisfactorily proved as any ancient 
fact need be, that infant baptism was publicly known 
and commonly practised from the very times of the 
apostles to those of Augustin and Jerome. What fact of 
Christian antiquity, I ask, reaches us recommended 
with stronger or with more variegated evidence than this 
very one? The concessions of Celestius and Pelagius 
are immensely weighty, not only from the circumstance 
of their being heresiarchs, but from their being men of 
talents, learning and large acquaintance with ^almost 
the whole religious world. Celestius was an Irishman, 
and Pelagius a South Briton; and besides possessing 
ample genius and splendid acquirements, they both 
had been diligent and extensive travellers, having tra- 
versed Europe, Asia and Africa, and having made long 
and improving visits to most of the principal cities of the 
three continents. Yet these men, thus accomplished, 
thus travelled, thus extensively conversant with the 
far greater part of the Christian church, whether ortho- 
dox or the reverse, and having access to all the various 
sources of information open to inquiry in those times, 
declare, without hesitation, that the baptism of infants 
was the universal usage of the church and the law of 
Christ, and that scarce a heretic could be found wicked 
enough to deny baptism to infants. Who, then, can hesi- 
tate a moment to give entire credit to testimony which, 
while it reaches us in a form so well authenticated, states 
that the most grossly heretical of such as received the 
scriptures at all, or could in any sense be deemed 
Christians, did all of them admit the propriety of bap- 
tizing infants. From these facts, however, we are not to 
infer that there were no sects in those times who oppos- 
ed the baptizing of infants. The Valentinians, Quintil- 
lianists, and Messallans did so. Such, too, were the 
followers of Manes, with whom Mr. Robinson seems 
disposed to fraternize with so much cordiality. 
'-'- The Manicheans in England,'' says he, p. 211, 212» 
^' would be called Unitarian Baptists; jfor Dr.^ Mo- 
^heim hath proved that they baptize adults, and that- 



115 

they did not baptize any but such as requested it." 
To say that the Manicheans of antiquity resembled the 
Unitarian Baptists of England, is saying very little in 
favour of the latter; since it is certain, from the highest 
historical authority, that there scarcely ever existed a 
more widely erratic, or a more detestable sect than the 
disciples of Manes. Besides receiving with abject 
submission, at the hand of their founder, an abomin- 
able system, which was neither more nor less than a 
motley combination of the doctrines of the Magi and 
those of the Jews, they denied the incarnation and suffer- 
ings of the Redeemer; affirmed that the Old Testament, 
instead of being the word of God, was in reality the work 
of the devil; and rejected also the four gospels, the Acts 
of the Apostles, and, in a word, the greater part of the 
New Testament.^ There were enough of this descrip- 
tion to reject infant baptism in those times, but they 
were not considered Christians at all, not even heretical 
owe-j, either by the Pelagians or the Orthodox, but as infi. 
dels and atheists; yet our very liberal historian and his 
passionate admirers, the Shakers, give them the fra- 
ternal embrace with great interest and -affection. But 
these things en passant — 1 again proceed to observe 
that it ought to be noticed also respecting this display 
of evidence (which, though luminous and convincing in 
a high degree, is but a small part of what can be exhibit- 
ed at the same period) that it becomes the more enlight- 
ened and impressive from the circumstances in which 
the facts took place and in which the statements were 
made. These historical documents, to which we re- 
sort for testimony, are the representations, the appeals, 
the concessions of persons who took opposite sides in 
one of the hottest and most remarkable controversies 
of the age; and yet all agree in declaring to the fact of 
infant baptism's being the universal and long establish- 
ed custom of the Catholic church. These documents 
xiome from five of the greatest men of that age; men of 

* Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. vol. 1. p. 287—394, 



116 

genius, learning, research, and eloquence; and conse- 
quently derive all that respectability and weight which 
splendour of talents, unquestionable veracity, enlight- 
ened judgment, and acquaintance with the whole reli- 
gious world can confer upon them. In particular allow 
me to remark, in reference to Augustin and Jerome, 
who cite Cyprian's letter, the former was born four 
years, and the latter sixteen years before the death of 
Cyprian; both were born and lived within the limits of 
the Catholic church, both had the advantage of an ex- 
tensive acquaintance, and they occupied, as public 
teachers, stations in the church remotely distant from 
each other, the one a bishop of Hippo in Africa, the 
other a resident bishop of Judea in Asia. These cir- 
cumstances show that both Augustin and Jerome had 
every opportunity for knowing the incorruptness of 
Cyprian's letter and the decree of the council of Car- 
thage; that the works of Cyprian must have been read 
and received as authority very extensively through the 
churches at that period, and that the same ideas and 
practice respecting the baptism of infants which are 
stated in the forementioned decree, must have been 
the prevailing idea at that time in Asia, Europe and 
Africa. I will add only that as this decree was intro- 
duced as important authority in the controversy with 
the Pelagians; and as the learned and ingenious 
Pelagius and Celestius, who had travelled through 
the churches of Europe, Africa and Asia, do not ob- 
ject either to its genuineness or contents, so far as the 
fact »".f baptizing infants is concerned, there is the 
highest possible reason for reposing both on the cre- 
dibility of the witnesses introduced and on the absolute 
certainty of the matters of fact to which they have 
given attestation. When such a stream of pure unsus- 
pected light is shed round the steps of the historical 
traveller while exploring Christian antiquity, I ask 
again was there '^ no hazard in affirming that towards 
the close of the fourth century the baptism of children 



117 

was first brought into public by Gregory NazianzenV^ 
Or that " it became agreeable to the clergy as a relief 
from the inconveniences of the catechumen stateV^ — Or 
that " it became popular only in proportion as fraud be- 
guiled^ or as civil power forced the reluctant laity to 
yield to it?''' — Yes, hazard enough, Heaven knows; and 
strange it was that such a candidate for fame as Mr. 
Robinson appears to have been, should have jeopar- 
dized every sacred attribute of historical character in 
affirming for facts things which the whole light of an- 
tiquity shows to be ''the baseless fabric of a vision!'' 

But, alas! this is not all that is put to hazard. If 
Augustin, Jerome, Chrysostom, Optatus, Paulinus, 
Ruffinus and Origen are not to be believed in the af- 
fair of baptizing infants; if the same spirit of carping 
incredulity and crimination is to govern (and it may 
do this with equal justice) our conclusions with re- 
gard to the rest of the Greek and Latin Fathers, if Mr, 
Robinson's principles of acting are pursued, the doc- 
trine of testimony will be cut up by the roots, the 
character and ecclesiastical details of the Fathers and 
historians of Christianity will be consigned to oblivion, 
and we shall look around in vain for a bible; for it 
is by such testimony alone that we are able to prove 
that we have now the very same scriptures Avhich the 
primitive Christians deemed canonical. Indeed Mr. 
Robinson pronounces a sweeping sentence of con- 
demnation upon the whole of them, p. 223. " It must 
be granted that the Fathers are miserable evidence of the 
truth offacts^ as well as incompetent judges of right.'''' 
Admit this judgment to be correct, and the question is 
settled as to the volume of inspiration so called, being 
the identical book delivered by the apostles, and suc- 
cessively transmitted from one age to another till it 
reaches our own times. 

Such revilers of the Fathers are doing the work of 
infidelity quite as effectually as infidelity itself could 
'wish. 



118 



CHAPTER 11. 



Sect. 1. 1 come now to review those facts and specula- 
tions by which Mr. Robinson endeavours to overthrow 
baptism in the mode of sprinkUng and affusion. The 
point to which he drives his inquiries and representa- 
tions, is showing that sprinkUng is of Pagan origin. 
To this purpose he would introduce Tertullian as de- 
livering his testimony. *' Tertulhan," says he, ^' in the 
second or third century affirmed that the ancient Pagans 
initiated persons into the mysteries of Isis and Mithra 
by a mock baptism, which satan inspired them to ad- 
minister, in order to render ineffectual that baptism 
which he foresaw Jesus would institute." p. 416. The 
sense of the passages in Tertullian, to which the learn- 
ed historian refers, namely, De baptismo^ c, 5. and Dc 
prescripti nibus adversus Hereticos^ lib, cap, 40, are 
not precisely, nor even justly stated. The first is as 
follows: *' But, truly, nations utterly destitute of the 
knowledge of spiritual things, confer authority upon 
their idols by a similar agency, but deceive themselves 
by inefficient waters. For, indeed, the candidates are 
initiated into the mysteries of a certain Isis and Mithras 
by baptism; and farther, they put honour upon their 
deities themselves by washings done also on them.* 
Besides, while they every where expiate the villas, 
houses, temples, and whole cities by the sprinkling of 
water carried round about them, they never fail being 
baptized for the Appollonarian and Pelusian games. 
And this they presume is to effect their personal rege- 
neration and the remission of their perjuries. Also 
among the ancients every one who had stained himself 

* That is, they lustrate or baptize the images of their gods; thus, 
as Ovid, Fast. 4, and Lucan. Pharsal. 1. declare, the lavation or 
baptism of Cybele, mother of gods, was celebrated in the river 
Almoj vi Kal. April. Vide Lomieri De lust. Vet. Gent. Syntag 



119 

with murder expiated himself with purifying water. If 
therefore they flatter themselves with mere natural 
water, as presenting a fit material for the desired fact of 
moral cleansing; how much more truly do waters pro- 
duce that effect by the authority of God, from whom 
the entire nature of these waters has been derived? If 
by religion they apprehend virtue to be infused into 
water, what religion can be more powerful in effecting 
this than that of the living God? — which fact, being 
acknowledged, we here recognize the care of the devil 
to imitate the things of God, when he also institutes 
a baptism for his followers.''^ In the other passage, 
Tertullian speaks very much after the same manner; 
observing that, with a view to subvert truth, the devil, 
in the mysteries of idols, apes the things done in the 
celebration of the divine sacraments. " He also," says 
this Father, " baptizes certain persons as being his be- 
lieving faithful ones; engages to them in baptism the 
remission of their sins; and after this manner he does 
to this very time initiate candidates into the mysteries of 
Mithras," &:c. After proceeding in the detail of other 
particulars of resemblance between the idolatrous rites 
and those deemed by him divinely instituted, he sk,et- 
ches rapidly and elegantly the institutions of Numa, 
and then asks *' whether the devil has not obviously 

* Sed enim nationes extranese ab omni intellectu spiritalium po- 
testatem eadem efficacia idolis suis subministrant, sed viduis aquis 
sibi mentiuntur. Nam et sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur, 
Isidis alicujus, aut Mithrx, ipsos etiam Deos suos lavationibus 
efterVunt. Ceterum villas, domos, templa, totasque urbes asper- 
gine circumlatx aqu3e expiant passim, certe ludis ApoUinaribus et 
Pelusiis tinguuntur. Idque se ia regenerationem et impunitatem 
perjuriorum suorum agere prscsumunt. Item penes veteres quis- 
qiiis se homocidio infecerat, purgatrice aqua se expiabat. Igitur 
si de sola naturae aqua, quod propria materia sit adlegendi auspicii 
emundationis, blandiuntur, quanto id verius aquae prsestabunt per 
Dei auctoritatem, a quo omnia natura earum constituta est? Si 
religione aquam medicari putant, quae potior religio quam Dei 
vivi? quo agnito hic quoque studium diaboli recognoscimus res 
Dei emulantis, cum et ipse baptismum in suis exercet. Tertull. 
de Baptismo liber cap. 5. 



1^0 

imitated the austerity of the Jewish law?'' And this 
done, concludes that it is probable in the whole dispo- 
sition of the idolatrous worship, the devil designed to 
imitate the things observed in the administration of the 
divine sacraments.* 

Thus Tertullian — and really, after examining him 
with some care, I am unable to see in him any thing 
like teaching that satan inspired the ancient Pagans to 
administer a mock baptism in order to render inef- 
fectual that baptism which he foresaw Jesus would 
institute! Indeed the historian shocks me! Be- 
hold this son of Socinus, whose theory degrades the 
Blessed Jesus to a mere man, confer upon satan the di- 
vine attribute of prescience! For when his infernal ma- 
jesty instituted the initiatory and expiatory baptisms of 
the Egyptian Isis and the Persian Mithras, of Apollo 
at Butum, andof Bubastis at Pelusium (which fact took 
place some centuries before Christ) he foresaw^ it 
seems, what that baptism would be which Jesus would 
institute^ And then the invention of this mock bap- 
tism among Pagans was, our author informs us, at the 
inspiration of the devil; which is an additional homage 
to the divine powers of the prince of Erebus! Yet 
how was dt a mock baptism, if its prototype was given 
by the inspiration of his satanic majesty? — The devil's 
baptism, according to the implication here, was the 
original, and Chrisfs — I tremble to proceed — was the 
mock baptism! 

Tell me, reader, was it strange this man loved the 

* Seel quseritur a quo intellectus interpretetur, eorum quae ad 
hsereses faciant? a diabolo, scilicet, cujus sunt partes intervertendi 
veritatem qui ipsas quoque res sacramentorum divinorum, in ido- 
lorum mysteriis emulatur. Tinguit et ipse quosdam utique creden- 
tes et fideles suos: expiationem delictorum de lavacro reproniittit, 
et sic ad hue iniliat Mithrje, &c. nonne manifeste diabolus morosita- 
tem illaiii Judaicx legis imitatus est? Qui ergo ipsas res de quibus 
sacrarnenta Christi administrantur, tarn emulanter affectavit expri- 
tnere in negotiis idolatrias, &c. Tertul. De prescript, adv. Heret. 
Lib. c. 40, 



121 

Manichcans? But no; it is shocking as it is false, 
though Mr. Robinson or an Apion, or an infidel Paine, 
preach it, that Christ and his apostles, or even the 
Jews, were the miserable copyists of the order and con- 
stitution of Gentile worship. This detestible hypo- 
thesis has received an everlasting check from the 
learned and eloquent pens of Josephus, Spencer, Wit- 
sius, Basnage, Lomeier, Bryant, and Maurice, who 
have put it beyond all reasonable doubt that the whole 
heathen world, the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and 
Bramins, derived originally their sacred usages, and 
baptism as well as others, from the same source with 
the Hebrews. This is the very doctrine expressed by 
TertuUian in the forecited passages, where he alleges 
that the religious customs, and particularly the bap- 
tism of the Gentiles, were imitations of those they saw 
practised among Jews and Christians. Justin Martyr 
delivers the same opinion in his first apology for 
Christians, where he says, '' The daemons had learned 
that very baptism from the prophets; in as much as 
they have it so arranged that they who go to the tem- 
ples should sprinkle themselves before they can offer 
them sweet odours and libations, or also that they 
wash themselves all over in water ere they approach 
the shrines. And since the priests command the vota- 
ries to enter stripped of their sandals on account of 
the sacredne^s of the place, these Genii do in fact imitate 
that which they know to have happened to Moses."* 
And Clemens Alexandrinus, in a passage which I will 
quote presendy for another purpose, speaking of the 
Gentile washings before praying and sacrificing, says, 
*'* And truly this may be the very image of the bap- 

* Kflc/ TO Xovr^cv 0¥) fSro ccKav^xvlti ol oetif^ove^ oiot t5 fr^d^rirov xe«i}- 

TiXeov ^i Kcci Xoveo-B-eti UTiUvleti^ Trpiv Ia3-«v !«•/ rcc hpx ivB-x '/^pvvJcci) 
Ofpysr*. Ab yecp to uxoXverB-eet Wi/ixtvovTxi Toii Upel^, kui to?5 uvtoT^ 
t£$ B-pYi<rKivovTets^ KsXivioS-cti vn-o t5v hpaTevovTaV) l» tuv cvfcjSiitla)/ M*- 
vii r(f Hpvi^ivoa 7rfo!p^Tn fioiB-ovTSi ol ^ecifcovts 'if^ifiyiCxvTo. 

Justin. Martyr. Apol. 1, nro Christianis, § 81-. 

Q 



122 

tism which has been deUvered from Moses to the 
poets." 

But what, I ask, was the mock baptism practised by 
the ancient Pagans? The learned historian would have 
us believe it was sprinkling only: but, unhappily for his 
statement, Tertullian says no such thing. That Father, 
indeed, speaks of the lustration of villas, houses, tem- 
ples and cities by the sprinkling of water, as one sort 
of Gentile baptism, but he mentions other baptisms in 
the very terms (^' tingiio^ lavatio and lavacrum'^) which 
he employs to set forth the Christian baptism as com- 
monly practised; which Mr. Robinson, w^ith modern 
Baptists, would have us believe mean immersion only, 
but which in the language of Tertullian were designed 
to describe the whole circle of Heathenish washings. 
Justin Martyr, in the passage cited above, says the 
baptism there described as having been derived from 
the Jewish prophets, consisted in sprinkling and im- 
mersions. The baptism by which persons were intro- 
duced to the mysteries of Mithras was in the mode of 
immersions repeated for many days, or, as Gregory 
Nazianzen says respecting persons suing for this ho- 
nour, that they were made SiOLM^^oLff^cAi i7n TroKKclig yjfxi- 
^<x7g v^ca^ TToAvy ^' to swim in much water for many 
days.''''^ 

Beside the washings above described, there were fhe 
baptisms or washings of the hands and the feet, which 
were very frequently and scrupulously observed for 
the expiation of crimes, or in approaching the gods in 
prayer or sacrifice. Of this sort, indeed, numerous in- 
stances occur in ancient authors; but, if I mistake not;, 
their immersions were still more common. 

Such were the Pseudobaptisms of the ancient Pa- 
gans! Yet how this is to help the author's assertion, 
that the primitive Christians took the hint of sprink- 
ling from the Pagans and the devil, I have yet to learn. 
But after brhiging into view the numerous immersions 

* Ifiomeier. De Lust. Vet. Gent. c. 16. 



123 

which the learned historian chose to conceal from his 
readers, I might say to his admirer, *'- physician^ heal 
thyself ^^ — show me that Christians did not get their dip- 
pings from the Pagans and the devil! When that is 
done I shall see a fair dereliction of Mr. Robinson's 
partial and criminating induction, and will not find it 
a hard task to free sprinkling from the same ungra- 
cious imputation. 

The quotations from Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and 
Clemens Alexandrinus, and the facts which they 
detail, make another point very plam, nay positively 
certain, namely, that there must have been such a thing 
as initiatory baptism among the Jews long before the 
time of Christ, in as much as it existed among the. 
Gentiles, in the religious rites of Isis, Apollo and 
Bubastis, 

These Fathers deliver this as their deliberate opi- 
nion, and the whole current of ancient history justi- 
fies it. 

But it seems, and Mr* Robinson makes a great thing 
of it, that the Greeks lustrated their infants on the fifth 
day after their nativity, giving them their names on 
the seventh, and that the Romans lustrated their in- 
fant females on the eighth day and the males on the 
ninth after the birth. In proof of these facts he refers 
to Lomeier's Epimenides, cap. 27. 

I respect, nay venerate Lomeier as authority, but 
then, I ask, why did not our historian tell us also from 
that very learned work what the lustration of infants 
really was? To have done so would have been fair; 
but instead of this he acts just as he did when he re- 
presented the lustrations of the Heathens to be sprink- 
lings only, sedulously cultivating the impression in 
the mind of the reader that in lustrating they sprinkled 
their infants, and is happy enough to find in Picart's 
Religious Customs the more recent existence of the 
fact, where it is said that the Mexican midwives bap« 
tized infants. 



124 

The artful and insidious representation thus spread 
out before the reader may have its use, no doubt; yet 
it may not be improper to inquire into the nature of in- 
fant lustration, and in doing this I will go to the his- 
torian's own authority, I mean I^omeier and Persius, 
sat. 2. as quoted by that author in the very next page 
after the one referred to by Mr. Robinson. An infant 
was then lustrated by oftering a sacrifice to the gods, 
by an aunt's taking it from the cradle and expiating 
its lips and forehead with lustral saliva, and a few other 
things still less like infant sprinkling than these;* and 
yet our author has the effrontery to assert that the lines 
of Persius, with a slight alteration, would be a very good 
description of a modern christening. 

If infant bap,tism existed among the Heathens of 
ancient times, it is very surprizing, and almost incre- 
dible, that TertuUian should not have mentioned it 
when he gives so minute an , account as he does in his 
book De Anima, c. 39. of the various rites practised 
by Pagans toward an infant during the first days after 
nativity down to the eighth or lustral day, and when 
he mentions one of the lustral rites, namely, that of 
fata scribundo advocandi; or that he should have failed 
to mention it when he speaks of the lustral solemnity 
in his book De idolatria, c. 16. under the title of No- 
minalia. Admit, however, that the ancient Heathens 
did baptize infants, it would go to prove, as their other 
baptisms do, a corresponding baptism among the Jews. 
Ail these facts, when impartially considered and fully 
stated, conspire to establish the baptism of initiation 
among the Jews, and also to enhance, in no inconsiderable 
degree, the evidence from history by which we estab- 
lish the fact of the existence of infant baptism among 
the primitive Christians. 

The learned historian, after informing us that '* the 

* See Johan. Lomeieri De Vet. Gent. Lustras. Syntag. cap. 27. 
prope ab initio. 



125 

Christians introduced lustration into their ritual, long 
before it was applied to infants," goes on to remark, 
" The primitive Christians considered lustration with 
abhorrence, deemed it a sort of magic, and preached 
and wrote against it: but a habit so ancient and in- 
veterate was not easily eradicated. (2)" p. 421. His 
reference in proof of this very extravagant statement 
is again toLomeier'sEpimenides, which really contains 
nothing like it. 

Lomeier indeed says, that to eradicate certain ab- 
horrent rites which had laid deep hold of men's minds, 
cost the primitive or rather ancient Christians immense 
labour, and that to effect it the doctors of the church 
made great efforts in tlieir homilies, commentaries and 
canons; nay, that Constantine and other emperors in- 
terposed their authority to suppress them. But he tells 
us also that those abominable superstitions were — things 
entirely different from initiatory sprinkling or baptism. 
They were the amulets with which superstitious per- 
sons fortified themselves against magical incantations; 
they were remedies against witchcraft, such as the 
wearing of rue or clown's spikenard; they were asper- 
sions to dissolve the incantations of wizards and 
witches, such as sprinkling the bewitched person with 
fountain water in which the root of the wild asparagus 
had been infused; and with certain other liquids which 
I beg leave to slur in terms borrowed from another 
language, lotio^ lotio suisse, et equcs urina^ and in doing 
this I use the very words of Lomeier. Ha supersti- 
tionum vanitates — These were the mummeries of a de- 
testable superstition, for the extirpation of which Lo- 
meier says the piety , eloquence and wisdom of antiquity 
were so perseveringly and successfully exerted: and 
are certainly very different matters from what Mr. Ro- 
binson endeavours to impose on the unlearned reader 

(2) Lomeieri ybi. Supra, cap. 39. 



126 

under the indescriptive and general terms lustrations 
and sprinklings*^ 

Sect. 2. But the question of anxious investigation is, 
what was the primitive mode of baptizing? At the near- 
est point to which we can recur in approaching the apos- 
tolic age, we see no opposition made to baptism in the 
mode of sprinkling, though the opposite one appears 
also to have been practised. The time of Justin Martyr 
is the farthest back we can go, which is about forty or 
fifty years later than the age of the apostles. 

In the passage selected from his second apology for 
Christians, p. 1 :, 7, he expressly calls the sprinkling, as 
well as entire ablutions of the Heathens, a baptism; and 
declares m.oreover that this veri/ baptism had been 
learned from the prophets. This document proves 
incontestibly, that in Justin Martyr's time sprinkling 
with water was deemed a real baptism; that the bap- 
tisms of the Old Testament were understood as Paedo- 
baptists generally now understand them; that the word 
^ocvri^co, to Sprinkle, signifies to baptize, in common 
with Aovo), to wash; and consequently, that the mean- 
ing put upon the words originally used to describe the 
baptism by modern Baptists is incorrect. 

Soon after the time of Justin and about sixty years 
after the apostolic age, a certain baptism is related 
which throws considerable light upon the questioiTas 
to the mode of baptizing in the second century. It is 
thus introduced by the Magdeburg historians: " Al- 
though it is to be lamented that the form of adminis- 
tering baptism which was in use in this age has not 
been very exactly described; yet that it continued to 

* See Lomeier's Epimenides, ch. 39. from which the above ac- 
count is taken. Among other ancient authorities introduced by that 
author is the decision of the council of Ancyranum, held in A. C. 
S08— Can. 23. sic decretum est: Qui angaria^ x>el ausfikia^ sive 
s07nnia,vel dtvinaiioncs'guaslidet, secundum inorcm gent'dium observ' 
ant, aut in domos suas hujusmodi homines introducunt in exquirendis 
aliquibus arte TnaUJica, aut ut domos suas lustrtut^ confessi quinque- 
nio penitcntiam agant, secundum antiquitus constitutat regulas. 



127 

be simple, is evident from this, that we do not find any 
mention made of any remarkable variation or change, 
in approved authors. Indeed that no change had taken 
place in the eastern churches and especially in that of 
Alexandria, the extraordinary case of the baptized 
Jew, related by Nicephorus, clearly shows. L. 3. c. 
37. " For at that time, when Marcus Aurelius Antoni- 
nus possessed the supreme power at Rome, it happen- 
ed that a certain Jew made a journey through a dry 
and desert country in company with some Christians, 
and joined with them in singing psalms; but whilst 
they were on the way the Jew was seized with a violent 
disease, so that he himself, as well as his companions, 
despaired of his life. He then solicited the Christians 
with many prayers that they would not leave him thus 
circumstanced in his last moments, but would confer 
upon him the sacred washing. But when they denied 
that it was in their power to do this for him because 
they were destitute both of a priest and water, without 
which baptism could not be administered. However 
the Jew more earnestly entreated and conjured them 
that they would not refuse to perform this thing for 
him. At length therefore, they, having stripped off his 
clothes, and making use of sand instead of water, 
sprinkled him three times, saying that they baptized 
him in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Spirit. Upon which a miracle immediately ensued, 
for this person, who on account of his grievous and 
dangerous illness was unable to stand upon his feet be- 
fore, being now restored, pursued the remainder of the 
journey with them, firm and strong. 

After they had returned home, the bishop of Alex- 
andria being consulted by them concerning the opi- 
nion of the church, answered; that the Jew was bap- 
tized^ provided only he should be again sprinkled with 
watery He did not enjoin the anointing with oil, or 
that other ceremonies and pomps which were after- 



I'JH 



wards added, should be used to this baptized per- 



son 



"^ 



This fact of the Jew's baptism, no less than the 
judgment of the bishop and church of Alexandria, 
makes it highly probable that the mode of baptizing 
at that time was simple sprinkling without the oil, the 
immersions and other superstitious ceremonies which 
afterwards became remarkable in the church. 

The same result will arise from observing in what 
manner Tertullian, the next earliest writer, treats of 
baptism in his day. Mr. Robinson thinks he has 
given us the practice of that period by a very formal 
criticism on what is said by Tertullian in his book De 
baptismo, c. 2. which is as follows: Nihiladeo est quod 

* Etsi dolendum est, baptizandi formam, quae usitata huic seculo 
fuit, non esse diligentius descriptam tamen simplicem fuisse reten- 
tam, ex eo apparel, quod in probatis autoribus nulla insignis repe- 
ritur variatio aut mutatio annotata. In orientalibus quidem ecclesiis 
maxime vero Alexandrina, nihil immutatum esse, casus ille mira- 
bilis super baptizatione Judaei, quern Nicephorus recital libro 3, 
cap. 37. ostendit. Cum enim Judaeus quispiam, eo tempore quo Ro- 
mse imperium Marcus Aurelius Antoninus tenuit, in arido forte et 
deserto loco cum Christianis iter faceret, et Psalmos una cum lis 
caneret, evenit ut morbo repentino et gravi Judaeus eo in itinere 
corripiretur, adeo ut de salute sua cum ipse, tum hi quorum comes 
erat, desperarent. Multis igitur precibus sollicitat ille Christianos, 
ne se ita in extremis constitutum relinquerent, sed sacrum lava- 
crum sibi conferrent. II li vero cum hoc ei se f\icere posse negarent, 
quia et sacerdote et aqua destituentur, sine quibus baptismus fieri 
non posset: magis Judseus et impensius obsecrare, et adjuratione 
COS ne hoc sibi negarent adigere. Ad quod illi, detractis homini 
vestibus, arena eum pro aqua ter conspersere, addentes; baptizare 
se eum in nomine Patris et filii, etrspiritus sancti. Quam rem con- 
tinuo miraculum consecutum est, ut nimirum is qui propter affec- 
tionem gvavem et periculosam pedibus pridem insistere non pos- 
set, nunc restitutus, reliquum quod superesset itineris, firmus et 
validuscum illis conficeret. Cum igitur ad locum suum rediissent, 
Episcopus Alexandriae ab illis consultus, de sententia Ecclesiae re- 
spondit: Baptizatum esse Judxum, si modo aqua denuo perfunde- 
retur. Non mandavit, ut olei inunctio, aut alii apparatus et pompae 
qu3c posea accesserunt, baptizato adhibentur. 

Eccles. Histor. per aliquot studiosos et pio3 vires in urbc Mag- 
deburgica. Cent. II. cap. vi. p. 110. 



129 

obdurat mentes hominum quam simplicitas divinorum 
operum quce inactu videntur, et magnifcentia qua in 
effectu repromittitur: ut hic quoque quonium tanta sim- 
plicitatey sinepompa, sine apparutu novo aliquo, denique 
sine sumptu homo in aqua demissus^ inter pauca verba 
tinctus, non multo vel ni/iilo mundior resurgit, eo incre 
debilis existematur consecutio ceternitatis. He is quite 
sure the words homo in aqua demissus et inter pauca 
verba tinctus non multo vel nihilo resurgit are exactly 
descriptive of the mode of baptizing observed by Eng- 
lish Baptists. But it is easy to perceive that the ex- 
pression homo in aqua demissus will as well describe the 
placing a person m the stream on his knees and then 
dipping his head forward into the water, after the man- 
ner of some sects of modern Baptists. I do not believe 
it possible to decide, from the words of Tertullian, 
what was the precise mode of immersion at Carthage; 
and, indeed, when I read that author and others of the 
Fathers, I am induced to think that where immersion 
in baptizing is expressed we are not always to under- 
stand the immersion of the whole body, but of the 
head only or some part of the body. Thus, for in- 
stance, Jerome, Epist. contra Luciferianos, speaking of 
immersion, says, ^^ as in the font of baptism^ ter mer- 
gitare caput, to plunge the head^ thrice under water, ^"^ 

But I will now introduce to the reader's observation 
several passages which will show very clearly what 
Tertullian and others in his day thought relative to the 
mode. 

In his book on baptism, ch. 12. he thus writes: 
** And now I come to respond as I am able to those 
who deny that the apostles were baptized. For if they 
had received the human baptism of John and needed 
the baptism of Christy with what propriety had our 
J^ord himself defined but one baptism only, saying to 
Peter wishing to be perfused. He who has once been 
washed has no need for washing again? which remark 
it is obvious he could never have made to one whQ 

R 



130 

was entirely unbaplized; and this is a prominent proof 
against those who take away John's baptism from the 
apostles with a view to overthrow the sacrament ofwa« 
ter baptism/' — '' Others, not without manifest reluc- 
tance, resort to this argument, that the apostles must 
have accomplished the duty of baptism when enclosed 
in the ship they were sprinkled with the waves ^ and 
likewise that Peter, walking through the sea, was am- 
ply dipped. But, in my opinion, it is one thing to be 
casually sprinkled or surprized with the dashing of a 
wave, and quite another to be baptized by a religious 
form."* 

In his book concerning penitence, ch. 6. we have 
the following explicit observation: " Neither do I deny 
the divine benefit, namely, the remission of sins, to be 
secure to those who shall receive baptism in any mode; 
but that it be thus happily attained, should be ardently 
laboured after: for who will apply to thee, a man whose 
penitence is so entirely hollow, a single sprinkling of 
waterP^^-f 

These passages give occasion for the following re- 
marks. That TertuUian admitted the aspersion of wa- 
ter to be baptism, is clear from this, that his argument 
from the fact of Peter's desiring to be sprinkled turned 

* Et nunc illis vit potero respondebo qui negant apostolos tinc- 
fos. Nam si humanum Joannes baptismuni inierant, et Dominicum 
desiderabant, quatenus unum baptismum definierat ipse Dominus, 
dicens Petro perfundi nolenti [volenti ut legit JuniusJ: Qui serael 
lavit, non habetnecesserursum [necesse rursum? secu7idumi\xni\im]: 
quod utique noD tincto non omnino dixisset: et hsec est probatio 
exerta ad versus illos, qui adimunt Apostolis etiam Joannis baptis- 
mum, ut destruunt aquae sacramentum. Alii plane satis coacte in- 
Jiciunt tunc apostolos baptismi vicem implesse, quum in navicula 
fiuctibus adspersi operti sunt; ipsum quoque Petrum per mare in- 
gredientem satis mersum. Ut opinor autem, aliud adspergi vel in- 
tercepi violentia maris, aliud tingui disciplina religionis. 

t Nequeego renuo,divinum beneficium, id est, abolitonem de» 
Victorum, inituris aquam omni modo salvum esse: sed ut eo perve* 
i\\\e contingat elaborandum est; quis enim tibi tarn infidae pceniten-* 
tise TJro, as^erginem unam cujuslibet aqu» commodabit. 



131 

pn that very point, that it was unnecessary, he being 
already baptized; but otherwise it would have been re- 
quisite, and, in the opinion of this Father, a baptism » 
The perfusion of water on the feet and hands, and head 
(for that was the full extent of Peter's request) was, 
according to Tertullian, a baptism. It appears also to 
have been alleged by certain persons of eminence at 
that time, that the apostles had been baptized when 
they were aspersed or sprinkled with the water thrown 
upon them in the ship by the dashing of the waves 
against the vessel in the storm, and at any rate that 
Peter was satis mersurrij fully dipped, when he 
walked through the sea to meet his Lord. The opinion 
of these persons, then, was, that the sprinkling of wa- 
ter upon a person, as well as the partial immersion of 
Peter (for take notice he did not sink entirely under 
water) was truly and properly a baptism. And to this 
Tertullian offers no other objection than that such ap- 
plications of water to the body wanted the form of re- 
ligion to constitute them proper baptisms; which fact 
leaves this obvious inference, that, in his estimation, if 
these applications had been religiously rriade they would 
have been truly valid baptisms. Let it also be borne in 
memory, that this Father, in speaking of the initiatory 
baptisms of the Pagans, which consisted of both sprink- 
lings and immersions, uses the words by which the 
Christian baptism is frequently expressed, viz. '' tinguo''' 
and *' lavacrum^'''' and that he classes the washing of ima- 
ges, which was performed either by affusion or immer- 
sion, nay the sprinkling of houses and temples, with the 
other baptisms of Pagan antiquity: all which facts prove 
that he considered any religious application of w^ater a 
baptism; and moreover, that in the second century the 
words by which the Christian baptism is expressed 
were applied in the precise sense which we now contend 
they should be. 

I will also wait to lay before the reader a passage 
from Clement Alexandrinus, who was so entirely con^ 



182 

temporary with I'ertullian that they both died in the 
same year, 220. Speaking of the washing of the hands 
and the feet among the Pagans before praying and sa- 
crificing, he says, " Thus, they say, it behoves them, 
having been washed, to approach the sacrifices and 
prayers with purity and neatness; and this, indeed, 
should happen on account of the symbol itself, which 
requires the worshipper to be externally ornate and 
pure. For, indeed, purity is the prerequisite for relish- 
ing holy things. And this, indeed, it would seem, is 
the image of baptism which from Moses has been hand- 
ed down by the poets after this manner, Penelope 
* In waters washed and clad in vestments pure' 

goes forth to prayer, but Telemachus 

' Laving his hands in the grey sea to Pallas prayed.' 

And this custom was so scrupulously pursued by the 
Jews that they would often be so baptized in bed.^^* 

Here washing the hands before praying and sacrifice 
ing is expressly, and by its appropriate Greek name, 
called a baptism; and what is still more remarkable, 
nay important in this controversy, we are told the Jews 
were in the habit of berrig thus baptized in bed, that is, 
washing their hands before they prayed. So that Cle- 
ment Alexandrinus not only understood that a partial 
washing could be a baptism, but also that washing a 
part of the body is the baptism of the person. The 
Jews were often baptized in bed! How deci- 
sive is this citation against the interpretation of the 
words BocTTri^ca and B«^Ti<r^6t by Baptist writers, against 

* Clemens Alex. lib. 4. strom. t«vt>j rot XiXovuivov<; ^uo-} h7v s^r^ 

vvfAJioXov %eipiv yhifr^cci ro i^a&iv KiKoTfcyjcScci re Kxt «y»<crtfot* ayvuu oi 
t^i <P^ovi7v 'ocTiot KUt 3>) Kxi vi UKav rou (iensriio'fAXTo'i iiti Uf Kcti « Ik Mav" 

it TrtvtXoiFrt \fr] rnv iv^iiv 'i^y^^tren TviXifiotx^? 3s 



133 

their exposition of Mark vii. 4 and 8. and against their 
unfounded assertions that the ancient Fathers always 
used the words baptize and baptism to denote the im. 
mersion of the whole body. 

I cannot proceed farther in this review without first 
noticing an important concession of TertuUian respecting 
the mode of baptism most commonly practised in his 
day, namely, trine immersion. In his book De corona 
Militis, cap. 3. he defends the practice of wearing the 
military crown on the principle of custom, which he 
contends must have emanated from tradition. In enume- 
rating various usages then existing in the church, which 
were not to be vindicated by scripture but on the prin- 
ciple thus assumed, he begins with baptism as then 
most commonly administered.* " That I may, there- 
fore, begin with baptism : When about to proceed to 
water, we then, and indeed somewhat sooner in the 
church beneath the hand of the bishop [or president], 
call heaven and earth to witness that we renounce the 
devil, his pomp and angels. Then we are dipped three 
timesy answering something more than our Lord has 

* Denique ut a baptismate ingrediar, Aquam adituri, ibidem 
sed et aliquanto prius in Ecclesia sub aniisliiis manu contestamiir 
r»os renunciare diabolo, et pompae et aagilis ejus. Dehinc ter 
niergitamur, amplius aliquid respoudentes, quam Dominusinin ev- 
angelic determinavit. Inde suscepti, lactis et mellis con^ordiam 
prsegustamus. Exque ea die, lavacro quotidiano per totara hebdo- 
madam abstinemus. Eucharisiise sacramentum et in tempore vie- 
tus, et omnibus mandatum a Domino, etiam antelucanis coetibus, 
nee de aliorum manu quam praesidentium sumimus. Oblationes 
pro defunctis, pro natalitiis, annua die facimus. Die Dominico je- 
junium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare. Eadem immuni- 
late a die Paschae in Pentecosten usque gaudemus. Calicis aut 
Panis etiam nostri, aliquid decuti in terram anxie patimur. Ad om- 
nem progressum, atque promotum, ad omnem aditum, et exitum, 
adveslitum, etcalceatum,adlavacra, admensas, ad lumina, ad cubi- 
lia, ad sedilia quacunque nos conversatio exercet, frontem crucis 
signaculo terimus. 

Harum et aliarum ejusmodi disciplinarum si legem expostulas 
ecripturarum, nullam invenies: traditio tibi praetendeUir auctrix? 
consuetudo confirmatrix et fides observatrix. 

TertulUani De Corona Militis Liber cap. iii. iv. 



134 

determined in the gospel. Then having been taken up 
out of the water we partake of a mixture of milk and 
honey. And from that day abstain through a whole 
week from the daily bath. The sacrament of the eu- 
charist, which our Lord celebrated at meal time, and 
ordered all to take, we receive in assemblies before 
day, and never but from the pastors [or presiding bi- 
shops]. We give oblations every year for^ that is in 
commemoration of^ the dead on the day of their mar- 
tyrdom. We deem it unlawful either to observe a fast 
or to pray in the posture of kneeling on the Lord's day. 
The same festive immunity we assume from Easter to 
Pentecost. We are deeply wounded if any of our bread 
or wine fall to the ground. At every undertaking or 
entrance upon business, at every coming m or going 
out, at dressing and putting on our sandals, at going 
into baths, at table, at the lighting of candles, at going 
to bed, at taking our seats, and whatever business oc* 
cupies our attention, we mark our forehead with the 
sign of the cross. If you demand the scriptural law 
authorizing these and other such like usages, you wili 
find none. Tradition will be presented as \\\^ founder^ 
custom the confirmer, and faith as the observer of them 
all." 

From this document it is safely inferrible, that 
though the practice of baptizing in the mode of three 
dippings was the most common one at Carthage, 
in the time of Tertullian, yet that there was not then 
set up even the slightest pretence to any thing- 
like scriptural authority for the practice of immer- 
sion, or any other part of the existing order of bap- 
tism; as the going to the water ^ renoiinci7ig the devil 
under the imposed hands of the bishops taking the milk 
and honey ^ and the abstaining from the daily bath for a 
week; all these being considered as standing upon the 
same' ground with taking the encharist before day^ 
oblations for the dead, and marking the forehead with 
the sign of the cross. Supposed tradition, is the only 



135 

authority assigned for the practice of dipping by a 
man of as much eloquence and learning as Tertullian.* 
Such is the -worthy origin of immersion, such the 
mighty proofs by which we are to be persuaded that 
this was the primitive mode of baptizing! 

' Ascending a little farther from the apostolic age it 
will be found that, though partial baptism by affusion 
still holds its ground as to validity in general estimation, 
still at Rome it is thrown into the back ground and even 
some objections begin to be opposed to it. In the year 
251 Novatian w^as chosen bishop by a party of the clergy 
and people of Rome, in opposition to Cornelius who 
had been previously elected by the majority and was 
already ordained bishop of that church. Cornelius, 
in his letter to Fabius bishop of Antioch, offers a plea 
in favour of his own ordination that his competitor, 
Novatian, was incapable of holy orders by the exist- 
ing canon law, and consequently that his election and 
ordination to the office of bishop, being illegal, ought 
not to be sustained, and states as a reason '' that all 
the clergy, and a great many of the laity, were against 
his being orddm^ presbyter^ because it was not law- 
ful (they said,) for any one that had been baptized in 
his bed in time of sickness [tov Iv xa/vij ^loi vog-qv 7rg- 
^/;^vO£VTflt] as he had been, to be admitted to any 
©ffice of the clergy."* The language used here as 

* I have said, " siififiosed tradition^** for Tertullian does not even 
pretend there was a real or apostolical tradition for the observance 
of these superstitious usages: but from prevailing practice infers 
tradition as in the matter of the military crown, concerning which 
he remarks, hanc si nulla scriptura determina-uitf certe consuetude 
corroboravit qua sine dubio de traditione manavit. This is not like 
the solemn appeals made by the fathers to an actually existing 
tradition or order from the apostles to baptize infants as a matter of 
universal credit. 

* See Wall's history oflnfant Baptism, pt. ii. ch. ix. § 2. Per- 
sons baptized in sickness being deemed not eligible to the ministe- 
rial office, was not because their baptism was thought invalid, but 
for another reason, which is stated in a canon of the council of 
Ncocxsarea, which sat about eighty years after this time: thus, "He 



136 
well as that which occurs in another part of the letter 

of Cornelius, ev uvrvi rji a^ivvj jy iKuro TTi^i^u^ik — 

** Perfused or sprinkled in the bed where he lay'' — 
shows very clearly that the mode of applying the 
water in Novatian's baptism was pouring or sprinkling, 
and that the water could not have been applied to but 
a small part of the body. This baptism, though evi- 
dently subjected to some disadvantages and embar- 
rassments, was nevertheless considered valid; and as to 
its date, though it is not very certain when it happen- 
ed, yet it is plain that it must have been prior, by a 
number of years, to the competition for the bishopric 
at Rome. Mr. Wall places it at a. d. 220. In the 
year 230 Basilides, according to Eusebius, lib. 6. c. 5. 
was baptized in prison, and consequently, on account 
of the extreme rigour with which prisoners w^ere then 
kept, must have been baptized in the mode of affusion. 

Origen, who was born a. d. 185 and died 254, 
speaks of both modes as being indifferently used by 
the church in his time, and does not even hint at the 
existence of any thing like an objection to the mode 
of baptizing by affusion.^ 

But soon after this period serious scruples were ex- 
pressed relative to this mode of baptizing; for in 255 
a person named Magnus writes to Cyprian proposing 

that is baptized when he is sick ought not to be made a priest (for 
his coming to faith is not voluntary, but from necessity) unless his 
dilii^ence and faith do afterward prove commendable, or the scarci- 
ty of men fit for the office do require it." 

* Origines lib. 2. de principiis: Salutaris, inquit baplismus non 
aiiter nisi excellentissimx omni trinitatis autoritate, id est, Patri et 
nlii et Spiriius sancti cognominatione completur. Mersionem seu 
iibhjtionem iihim seqiiebatur unctio et manus impositio, Sec. 

Quhi et in carcere baptizare recens conversos, receptum fuisse 
videtur: et testatur exemphim de Basilide carnifice, qui inter sup- 
plicia Powtamisense, Alexandrinsc puell3E nobihs, qux sub Severo 
martyrio perfuncta est, con versus, ac christian um se mox confes- 
sns, in carcerem abreptus, ibique a fratribus baptizatus est: refert 
Euisebius lib. 6. capite quiiito. Hist. Eccles, Magdeburgens. Cent. 
III. cap, VI. 



137 

the question directly, whether persons who had been 
baptized on a sick bed ought to be baptized again 
should they happen to recover. Cyprian answers, 
'^ You inquire, dear son, what I think of such as ob- 
tain THE GRACE in time of their sickness and infirm* 
ity, whether they are to be accounted lawful Christians: 
because they are not washed all over with the water 
of salvation; hut have only some of it poured on them. 
In which matter I would use so much modesty and 
humility as not to prescribe so positively but that 
every one should have the freedom of his own thought, 
and do as he thinks best. I do according to the best of 
my mean capacity judge thus; that the divine favours 
are not maimed or weakened, so as that any thing less 
than the whole of them is conveyed, where the benefit 
of them is received with a full and complete faith both 
of the giver and receiver. For the contagion of sin 
is not in the sacrament of salvation, washed off, 
by the same measures that the dust of the skin and of 
the body is washed off in an ordinary and secular bath, 
so as that there should be any necessity of soap and 
other helps, and a large pool or fish pond by which 
the body is washed or cleansed. It is in another w^ay 
that the breast of a believer is washed; after another 
fashion that the mind of a man is cleansed by faith. In 
the sacraments of salvation, when necessity compels, 
the shortest ways of transacting divine matters do, by 
God's gracious dispensation, confer the whole benefit. 
And no man need therefore think otherwise, because 
these sick people xvhen they receive the grace of our 
Lord have nothing but an affusion or sprinkling; when 
as the holy scripture by the prophet Ezekial says, *' / 
will sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be 
clean,'' ''^ 

'' Also it is said. That soul shall be cut off 
from Israel, because the water of aspersion has not 
been sprinkled upon him." Again, The Lord saM 
* Ezek. xxxvi, 25. 



138 

unto Moses, Take the Levites and cleanse them; 
sprinkle water of purifying upon them. And again, 
The water of aspersion is purification.* From whence 
it appears that sprinkling is sufficient, instead of im- 
mersion; and whensoever it is done, if there be a sound 
faith, it is perfect and complete. 

If any one think that they obtain no benefit, as having 
only an aifusion of the water of salvation, do not let him 
mistake so far, as that the parties, if they recover of 
their sickness, should be baptized again. And if they 
must not be baptized again, that have already been 
sanctified with the baptism of the church, why should 
they have cause of scandal given them concerning their 
religion and the pardon of our Lord? What! shall we 
think that they have granted to them the grace of our 
Lord, but in a weaker or less measure of the Divine and 
Holy Spirit: so as to be accountedChristians, but yet not 
an equal state with others? No: the Holy Spirit is not 
given by several measures, but is wholly poured upon 
them that believe," &c. 

He afterwards, in the course of his argument, asks, 
*' Can any one think it reasonable that so much honour 
should be showed to the heretics, that such as come 
from them should never be asked whether they had a 
washing all over or only an affusion of water; and yet 
among us any should detract from the truth and anti- 
quity of faith?"! 

An instance of partial washing or affusion is re- 
lated in the acts of St. La\wence, who suffered martyr- 
dom about the same time with Cyprian, namely, 258. 
It is of this nature: One of the soldiers who were ap- 
pointed to be his executioners, having become a con- 
vert to Christianity, '' brought a pitcher of water for 
hawrence to baptize him withJ''' 

These acts in their present form are far from being 
incorrupt, containing, as it is allowed, many interpola- 
tions and fabulous statem^ents. This concession, how- 
* Numb. viii. 6, 7 . f Cypriani. Epist. 9. 



116 

eyer, does not affect the credibility of the fact just re- 
lated, because, says Mr. Wall, '* This passage seems to 
be genuine, because it is cited by Walafridus Strabo 
(De rebus Ecclesiast. c. 26,) who lived before those 
times in which most of the Roman forgeries wxre add- 
ed to the histories of their saints."* 

In the fifth century, immersion or sprinkling is men- 
tioned as matter of indifference by Gennadius of Mar- 
seilles. Having stated the following opinion, '^ We be- 
lieve the way of salvation to be open only to baptized 
persons; we believe that no catechuman, though he 
die m his good works, has eternal life" — he subjoins, 
** except the case of martyrdom, in which all the sa- 
craments of baptism are completed." To explain this 
exception he observes, '' The person to be baptized 
owns his faith before the priest: and when the interroga- 
tories are put to him, makes his answer. The same 
does a martyr before the Heathen judge: he also owns 
his faith, and when the question is put to him, makes 
answer. The one after his confession is either wetted 
with the water ^ or else plunged into it: and the other is 
either wetted with his ow?i blood, or tlst'is plunged [or 
overwhelmed] in fire. ' ' f 

In 1255 Thomas Aquinas speaks thus: '* Baptism 
may be given not only by immersion, but also by affu- 
sion of water or sprinkling with it. But it is the safer 
way to baptize by immersion, because that is the most 
common custom. "j: At the same period, as reported 
by Mr. Wall, Bonaventure, says that, ^' the way of 
affusion was probably used by the apostles, and was in 
his time used in the churches of France and some others; 
but he says the way of dipping into the water is the 
more common, and the fitter, and the safer. "^ 

* Hist. In. Bapt. pt. 2. chap, ix .§ 2. Walafridus Strabo flourish- 
ed about the middle of the 9th century. 

t De Eccl. dogmatibus. c. 74. as cited by Mr. Wall, Hist. Inf. 
Bapt. pt. 2.ch. 9. §2. 

% 3 qu. 66. art. 7. cited by Wall ubi ut supra. 

§ Hist. In. Bap, ubi ut supra. 



140 

The s}Tiod of Angiers, 1275, while they pronounce 
either dipping X)r pouring indifferent and censure some 
ignorant priests for using but a single immersion or 
affusion in the act of baptizing, declare, that it was the 
general practice of the church at that time to dip or 
pour on water three times* 

In a council held at Ravenna, a. d. 1311, either 
mode of baptizing was declared to be lawful; and in 
1380 the famous reformer, Wickliffe, declares a similar 
judgment. "Nor is it material, "says he, " they be dipped 
once or thrice, or water be poured on their heads, but 
it must be done according to the custom of the place 
where one dwells." The synod of Langres in 1404, 
mention the mode of pouring and none other. " Let 
the priest," say they, '* make three pourings or sprink- 
lings of water on the infanfs head^ 

In 1536 the Dutch baptized infants by pouring and 
the English by immersion, as it is stated by Erasmus 
in a marginal note on the 76th Epistle of Cyprian, 
where he remarks Perfunduntur apud nos, merguntur 
apud Anglos. " With us (in Holland) they have the 
water poured on them; in England they are dipped." 

In the synod of Aix in 1585, either mode is spoken 
of as indifferent; " Pouring or dippings as the use of the 
church is,^^ and it is there ordered that the '' pouring of 
the water be not done with the hand, but with a ladle 
or vessel kept in the font for that purpose."* 

The very important details and documents thus pre- 
sented to the reader will permit the introduction of 
some general remarks and inferences. 

1. It is an obvious deduction from the foregoing 
facts, that difficulties, embarrassments, and objections 
against pouring or sprinkling, appear to have gained 
ground, in most countries, from the time of Tertul- 
lian and Origen down to that of Wickliffe the famous 
rector of Lutterworth. Immersion appears to have 
feeen the most revered as well as the most commonly 
* See Mr. Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. ubi iit supra. 



141 

practised mode of baptizing for many centuries; affu- 
sion or sprinkling' in baptism is, for the most parr, con- 
fined to jails and the beds of the sick or dying. Almost 
the only exception to this remark was the practice of 
tlie churches in France, and perhaps that of the 
churches of Holland might also be considered as one. 
The French churches, though they appear to have to- 
lerated immersion, have from the most ancient period 
to which we can recur in their history, always retained 
the primitive mode. Mr. Wall, who was partial to 
dipping, though he contends for the other as being en- 
tirely sufficient, remarks that '' Gennadius of Marseilles 
is the first author that speaks of it" (the mode of bap- 
tism) *' as indifferent;" but in this that very accurate 
and learned historian w^as evidently mistaken. For, be- 
sides the fact of Jew 's baptism, both Tertuliian and 
Origen not only never object to baptism in the mode 
of affusion, but possitively declare, as has been already 
stated, the divine benefit to be secure to those who re- 
ceive baptism in either mode. The earliest objections, 
or rather scruples, to pouring or sprinkling any where 
to be met with on the page of history, may be dated 
somewhere about the middle of the third century. So 
that Gennadius speaks of baptism entirely in the style 
of the second and the beginning of the third century, 
when he calls it a wetting of the body like the sprink- 
ling of the martyr's blood, or a being plunged as the 
martyr was when immersed in flame. Indeed it would 
be easy to produce passages from Tertuliian and Origen 
precisely similar, were it necessary after what has 
been already introduced to the notice of the reader. 
But I am happy to find myself supported in stating 
this fact by the learned Kromayer, professor of theo- 
logy in the academy of Le'ipsic, in his Ecclesm in Po- 
litia; who asserts that during the second century the 
convert to Christianity '* received baptism either in the 



142 

mode of immersion, or sprinkling of water; both of 
which modes obtained at that period."* 

Gennadius and his countrymen had escaped, in 
some good degree, the rage for dippings which had 
been gradually gaining ground and extending its 
claims to precedence; for more than two centuries it 
had almost every where else proscribed baptism by 
affusion, except in cases of necessity. In France and 
some other places, this same mode had been observed, 
time immemorial; through the whole progression of 
ecclesiastical affairs it always maintained an equality 
with immersion, and ultimately was permitted to 
plead its claims to truth and primitive character so 
powerfully as to receive the approbation and adoption 
of a considerable proportion of the western church. 
The fact of pouring or sprinkling water on baptized 
persons being a thing so well knowii in the churches of 
France and some others, forcibly struck the mind of 
Bona venture and induced him to think it was the 
mode of baptism observed by the apostles. Indeed no 
conclusion can be more just than this. For, to say no- 
thing of the powerful smptural pleas by which affu- 
sion or sprinkling is supported, nor yet to plead the 
judgment of the bishop and church of Alexandria 
which goes far to prove that sprinkling was the custo- 
mary mode m the beginning of the second century, the 
very manner in which immersion obtained footing 
should lead every person to consider it as a suspicious 
visitant, if not an intruder. The very first glimpse we 
get of the thing is in company with various other super- 
stitious usages; such as fastings, kneelings, watchings, 
impositions ofhands,' and special renunciations of the de- 
vil before baptism; set times for administering that ordin- 

* Si quis adultus vel ex Judaismo, vel Ethnicismo ad christian- 
ismum accessisset, prius in doctriiia Christiana erudiebatur, et tunc 
prasmissisjejuniis,et precibusejus,quijbaptizanduserat,baptismum 
vel immersione, vel aspersione aquae (uterque enim ritus tunc 
obtine bat) accipiebat. Kromayeri Pol. in Eccles. — Stat. Eccl. suh 
cent. ii. p< 90. 



ance, as at Easter and Whitsuntide; and after it, the 
tasting the milk and honey, abstinence from the daily- 
bath; and all those grouped with a tribe of kindred 
ceremonies, such as the military crown, oblations for 
the dead, and the sign of the cross. At first she is com- 
plaisant and polite to her rival, baptism by affusion, but 
at length the last is, in most places-, driven out of doors 
altogether, and packed off a begging for an ambiguous 
standing, a precarious refuge in hospitals, prisons and 
houses of mourning. 

And is not this the usual progress of every usurper? 
First equality only is claimed, next precedence, and 
last of all domination. Add to this the facilities which 
existed for the introduction of immersion. The Jews 
w^ere passionately and superstitiously addicted to dip- 
ping; the people in those southern countries were in 
the habit of going into the baths daily, wherever it was 
practicable; and, above all, immersion fell in exactly 
with that superstitious veneration for the waters of bap- 
tism which is so very remarkable in TertuUian and 
most of the Fathers. The early and powerful 
operations of Jewish habits is well known to every 
person who has read the New Testament, and every 
one knows and acknowledges the excessive and per- 
tinacious fondness of Jews for dipping for some time 
before as well as after the Christian era. The person 
must be dipped; yes, dipped all over; if so much as a 
finger were undipped the immersion was incomplete 
and the person remained unclean. Was it strange, 
then, that such persons, embracing Christianity, should 
easily drop into the practice of immersion? No calcu- 
tion can be more rational! But there is a weJl known 
fact which very much strengthens this inference. That 
Jewish dipping was the rage of early times appears 
from this, that a number of sectaries seem to have 
been impelled by it to more than Pharasaic extrava- 
gance. 

Not to mention the Nazarenes and some other secta- 



144 

rics who Avere suiliciently attached to immersion, I 
Mill notice only the Ebionites and Sampsaians or Elce- 
saites. Epiphanius says concerning the former, '' The 
Ebionites revere water as a God. They constantly wash 
(baptize) themselves in water, in winter as well as in 
summer, for the sake of purification, in the same man- 
ner as the Samaritans."^ And concerning the latter 
the same author remarks, '' They have a great venera- 
tion for water. For they almost account it a God, as- 
serting that it is the source of life." f This was push- 
ing the passion for water to its proper extent, to be 
sure; and shows the melancholy length to which the 
human mind may be driven by laying too much stress 
upon an outward rite. Though the Christian Fathers, 
and with them the Catholic church, may not be charge- 
able with so blasphemous a deification of water, yet it 
must be allowed that even they pushed their veneration 
for water sufficiently far; when they conceived that the 
baptismal waters had something divine in them; that the 
Holy Ghost, as they believed, descending upon them 
like a dove, and com7numcating to them a heavenly in- 
fiuence thus regenerated and saved the soul. 

Now, when it is considered that the primitive 
Christians were much addicted to bathing in common 
hfe; that many of those had strong predilections for 
Jewish customs, and others were easily overcome by 
the influence of intercourse and example, and, above 
all, that they very soon began to entertain a fond and 
highly extravagant reverence for water, it will not be 
surprising that immersion was generally introduced, or 
that by the time of Tertullian the practice should have 
become almost universally prevalent in the Catholic 
church, or that it should so long and so generally have 

n Kcti '^iiu.uvG(;^ eii ccyvio-y.cv ^/j^f v, A'O-TTgg Of l^cif^x^iiretf. Operas, vol. i. 
p. 5 3. citfd by Dr. Jamieson Vind. vol. ii. b. v. sect. iii. 

* Teriu/iTxt ^i kch to v^iW^, y.on tokto ft*? ©eov »jy«fT«« 6-«/j5ov <pu(rKot- 
T£5 fe/m< TYiV l^a)Yii tK rovTS. Hoci'. 58. p. 461, as cited by Dr. Jamie 
son, ibid. 



145 

held a decided superiority over the opposite mode of 
baptism. 

In one word, while the primitive mode would seem 
to have been that of affusion, the mode of baptizing by 
plunging the whole body under water has no well de- 
fined examples to support it in the history of the church 
in the first ages, unless it should be those of Jews, 
Nazarenes, Ebionites and Sampsaeans; and in modern 
times comparatively few; for some of the Anabaptists 
have all along, and do even now, contend for sprinkling. 

2, The foregoing facts make another inference equal- 
ly clear, that the practice of immersion has not been 
so generally observed in the church as has been sup- 
posed. Throughout the whole kingdom of France, 
most probably in Holland and in some other places re- 
ferred to, but not particularly named by Bonaventure, 
affusion or sprinkling was quite as much used as im- 
mersion, if not more so. It appears, also, from the 
passage produced out of Cyprian's letter to Magnus, 
that several sects of Christians, not in communion with 
the Catholic church, were in the habit of baptizing by 
pouring or sprinkling. -When it is said, therefore, by 
Baptist writers, and others who ^have a predilection 
for baptizing by immersion, that the whole Christian 
church, for thirteen hundred years, understood 
baptism to be immersion and practised in conformity 
to that opinion, the position is not true, and conse- 
quently the argument which is built upon it, namely, 
that immersion must therefore have been the primitive 
mode of baptizing, falls to the ground. All Christians, 
whose practice has been attended to in this controversy, 
did not practise immersion; but many of them prac- 
tised just the contrary, or deemed it quite immaterial 
what mode was practised. Even some sects of the Anti- 
pedobaptists, it is well known, advocate sprinkling, and 
the Greek church, of whose immersion Baptists speak 
so confidently, did not always dip the whole body, but 
a part of it onlv, and they, as well as other churches 

T 



146 

where immersion was the prevailing practice, admitted 
baptism by pouring or sprinkling as a valid mode of 
baptizing, though allowed only in cases of necessity. 
This appears from the detailed view of their doctrines 
and religious rites which was penned by an archbishop 
of their own and published afterwards by Kromayer. 
They dipped infants up to the breast only in water 
when they baptized them, and considered ^atTrrifgiv'as 
a generic word designed to express the application of 
water either by immersion or sprinkling.* The judg- 
ment of Baptists, then, has no parallel, no precedent in 
the church; because they think that baptism can mean 
nothing but total immersion, that there is no baptism 
where that does not take place, and that no wetting of 
the body by pouring, however perfect it may be, will 
pass for a baptism. They must go out of the church to 
find such examples of immersion as they contend for — 
they must go among the Jews, Nazarenes, Ebionites and 
Sampsaeansto find precedents and judgments for total 
and exclusive immersion. 

Sect. 3. Having taken this retrospect of the history 
of the mode of baptism, I will now return to Mr. Robin- 
son and his history. With respect to lustration, which 
the author insidiously attempts to associate, or rather 
identify with sprinkling, our learned historian thus 
adds: " Councils made canons and emperors issued 
edicts against it. Constantine the great gave it its death 
wound, but it did not expire till the reign of Honorius. 
At what time it was introduced into the Christian ritu- 
all authors are not agreed. Some say Pope Alexander 
I. who flourished about the beginning of the second 
century, introduced it. Others call it an Apostoli- 
cal tradiction, but the most likely opinion is, that 
it was used in the sixth century as a complaisant ac- 
comjnodation to the prejudicesofPagans, and afterwards 
continued by connivance, till, in the end, the legislature 
was obliged to humour the popular taste, and holy wa- 

* Vide H. Kromayeri Scrutin. Relig;ionuni,.p. 276, 278. 



147 

ter was enacted by law and the use of it regulated by 
canons and rituals." p. 421, 422. 

The author, in this passage, as well as in that part 
of his book whence it is taken, artfully and sedulously 
endeavoured to impress his reader with the idea that 
sprinkling had, on its earliest introduction into the 
church, excited the warmest and most powerful oppo- 
sition. Ecclesiastical canons and imperial edicts were 
thundered out against it; but it would seem without 
considerable effect, for to Constantine the great was re- 
served the honour of inflicting its death wound, and 
even then, it survived with the wounds of death upon 
it, till the reign of Honorius, seventy or eighty years 
longer. 

As it stands, this whole account is fable, and no- 
thing more. I have shown the reader already what those 
abominable usages were against which acclesiastical 
and imperial influence were directed with so much 
propriety and success. But these were something else 
than the practice of baptism, by sprinkling, and our 
historian ought to have said so. There never was an 
edict issued by any emperor, whether Constantine 
or any other; there never was any decision of any accle- 
siastic council employed against baptism by sprinkling 
during all that period of which the author, is speaking; 
much less did it receive its death wound from Constan- 
tine the great, fond as he was of immersion (for he 
was baptized by sprinkling in his last moments) 
or expire during the reign of Honorius. True, this 
mild unassuming usage was unpopular during all that 
period, and generally speaking, found only an asylum 
in the house of mourning, in the jails and lazarettoes 
of the east; but still it never expired, it never was de- 
nounced as unlawful, but on the contrary permitted to 
exist in both the Greek and Roman church as that 
which was proper and valid, though restricted to cases 
of necessity. Nor is this all; we find that baptism in 
this mode was as common in the Gallican church as 
the one by immersion at the very time Mr. Robinson 



148 

says it had expired of its deadly wound, namely, in 
the ftfth century; for in that century Honorius died, 
and in that century Gennadius speaks of it as being 
something quite as customiuy as immersion. And 
there it continued to be the popular mode of baptizing, 
until in the end k began to resume its original stand- 
ing in the church and pass into the ritual of other 
churches, as we find it had done in the time of Bona- 
venture and Thomas Aquinas, namely, a. d. 1255. In 
the age of Erasmus, 1536, it was the prevailing mode 
of baptizing at Rotterdam and throughout Holland. 
About the same time it was the instituted form of bap- 
tism in the church of Geneva, and all that line of re- 
formed churches which stood connected with it in 
doctrine and discipline. From these churches it was 
carried into Great Britain by the exiled clergy of the 
reformation on their return home after the Marian per- 
secution, passed into general use, and from them has 
been transmitted to their numerous descendants, the 
Congregationalists, Covenanters, Seceders, Associate 
Reformed, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Method- 
ists in America. It appears also to have been intro- 
duced into Germany as early as 1536; for at that time 
the council at Cologn mention it as a matter quite in- 
different whether the child were dipped or sprinkled. 
Pretty soon after this it became, in most reformed 
countries, the popular mode of baptizing. The de- 
scendants of the Dutch and Germans in another age 
brought it into North America, and in that line die 
practice has continued among the Lutherans, Moravi- 
ans, and Reformed Presbyterians. In this way the thing 
expired! — and thus it is we have full opportunity to 
observe and appreciate the historical accuracy of Mr. 
Robinson! 

The historian is altogether uncertain at what period 
sprinkling was introduced into the Christian ritual. If 
by its introduction into the Christian ritual he means 
its being settled by canon law or a distinct form of 
prescription in the rubric of the church, it may perhaps 



149 

be difficult to find any exclusive example of this kind 
earlier than the period of the Reformation. It was in- 
deed recognized as lawful in the council of Neocsesarea 
in 314, as it was afterwards, in 754, by a decree of 
pope Stephen III., but only in cases of necessity: and 
in 1311 the council of Rauenna declared either dipping 
or sprinkling indifferent; and the synod of Langres, in 
1404, mention pouring or springling only: yet the 
earliest notice of it in the office or liturgy of any 
church, is in that of the Genevese church, published 
m 1545. But if we are to determine its existence in 
the Christian ritual by the Christian practice, we will 
see it spoken of as indifferent in the tim^e of TertuUian 
and Origen, and allowed to be valid in cases of neces- 
sity in Cyprian's time among the Catholics. We will 
see that, as practised among other sects, it was quite as 
frequent as dipping; and that in France, as far back as 
history will carry us, it was as popular as the mode of 
dipping. Surely these facts would seem to say that 
sprinkling had been early introduced into the Christian 
ritual. The learned historian's notice of Pope Alexan- 
der I. as connected with the introduction of sprinkling, 
is a fine stroke, and will be susceptible of infinite im- 
provement in a popular harangue against sprinkling. 
But it would be as well if the plain reader were in- 
formed that in the beginning of the second century, the 
bishop of Rome had just as little power as a presbyte- 
rian bishop, who is the moderator of a provincial synod. 
But he inclines to think it the most likely opinion 
that it was first used in the sixth century ^ as a com- 
plaisant accommodation to the prejudices of Pagans. 
First used in the sixth century! What! when 
the author himself tells us that it had been used long 
before in times of Constantine and Honorius; that 
councils had fulminated denunciatory canons and em- 
perors issued edicts against it; nay, that under one em- 
peror it had received its death wound and actually ex- 
pired in the reign of another? The practice must; then 
have existed in the Christian church, else why were 



150 

ecclesiastical canons made in opposition to it? or if it 
actually expired in the fifth century, how was its use 
by Christians in the sixth century a complaisant accom- 
modation to the prejudices of Pagans? Just so flatly 
does the historian contradict his own tale, which, how- 
ever well told, is no less contrary to truth than contra- 
dictory to itself. The facts already introduced to the 
observation of the reader give indubitable proof that 
sprinkling, as a mode of baptism, was in use long be- 
fore the sixth century. 

Bat the Pagan business of sprinkling is continued, 
says our author, by connivance till it became highly 
pleasing to the people, and to humour the popular taste 
it became a necessary object of legislative interference. 
Holy water was enacted by law and the use of it regu- 
lated by canons and rituals. I am at a loss to know why 
the legislature were obliged to interfere when the prac- 
tice was previously popular. 

Here, at last, we see the deception which the histo- 
rian is practising upon the reader; the secret leaks out 
that it was '' holy water''^ which was enacted by law and 
its use regulated by canons and rituals. Very well. But 
what has that to do with baptism in the mode of sprink- 
ling? Just nothing at all, nor has the author attempted to 
show that it has. The question is not, when holy water 
was introduced into the church, or what became of it after- 
ward; but when was baptism by sprinkling introduced! 
— and this we have clear and full proof was frequently 
practised both by the Catholic church and some Chris- 
tian sects out of the communion, from the time of Ter- 
tullian down to the present day. The author's elaborate 
story about holy water, then, is to be considered not only 
as learned trifling, but as a studious attempt at mislead- 
ing and deceiving the reader. It has been thought a mas- 
ter stroke of policy with infidels to attack Christianity 
through the corruptions and deformities heaped upon it 
by tlie church of Rome. Just so in driving home a stroke at 
baptism by sprinkling Mr. Robhison copies this me- 
thod of attack, and makes his pass through the sides of 



151 

an odious Roman superstition, the sprinkling of holy 
water. And lest the reader should mistake his mean- 
ing, he institutes, p. 459. a formal comparison between 
Pagan lustration and infant sprinkling; but which de- 
serves no serious answer, as it is the result of a distor- 
ted and even a disengenuous statement of facts. 

I go on to notice a very extraordinary passage, and 
the last I shall quote, in p. 448, 449. *^ In the primi- 
tive church there was no mention of baptizing by 
pouring" — *' The first appearance of baptizing by 
pouring was in the eighth century, when pope Stephen 
allowed the validity of such a baptism in infants in 
danger of death. Protestants confound this with sprink- 
ling; but the words are express for pouring. The ques- 
tion which the monks put to Stephen was, " whether, 
in case of necessity, when an infant was sickly, it were 
lawful to administer baptism by pouring water upon 
the head out of a vessel, or the hands? — Si licet per 
necessitatem cum concha, aut cum manibus infanti in 
infirmitate posito, aquam super caput Fund ere etsic 
baptizare." The distinction here taken by the author, 
between sprinkling and pouring, contrary to the deci^ 
sion of Protestants, who, as he believes, improperly 
confound the words, is unquestionably futile, if not 
impalpable; for who can discriminate between profuse 
sprinkling and what is called pourmg? 

Such distinctions are hypercritical and fall greatly 
below the dignity of history. He thinks the words are 
express for pouring: but how can that be when the 
wov^ fundere signifies to shed and sprinkle^ as well as 
to pour out? Besides this fundere cum manibus limits 
the sense of the word, to the very action which Pro- 
testants describe by the words pouring and sprinkling. 
When our Lord took a bason of water and was wash- 
ing the disciples' feet how did he apply that water? 
certainly not by pouring the water out of the ewer or 
bason upon their feet, but by lifting the water out of 
the bason with his hands and letting it fall from his 
hand upon their feet. In the same mode did Peter ex- 



152 

pect his Lord to wash, when he asked him to wash not 
only his feet, but his hands and his head. This action is 
just what Protestants would call pouring, or sprinkling; 
and it is remarkable that Tertullian in speaking of this 
fact, uses a word which expresses precisely the same 
thing, namely, perfundi. Now who will pretend to 
point out a difference between the f under e of Stephen 
and the perfundi of Tertullian, when both the one and 
the other was to be performed cum manibus with the 
hands of the baptizer? Perfundi is the word used by 
Erasmus to describe the sprinkling of infants in Hol- 
landi and certainly he knew the meaning of words 
quite as well as Mr. Robinson. The baptism of Nova- 
tian in bed is described by 7rg^/;^u9-gic, a word which ex- 
presses exactly the same thing with those above men- 
tioned. 

Both the expression of Tertullian and Cornelius, 
just referred to, make it clear to every person, that the 
assertion of Mr. Robinson is totally incorrect, when 
he says there was no instance of baptizing by pouring 
in the primitive church. 

With the foregoing examples and facts in observa- 
tion the reader will see that there have been, for a long 
series of time, ardent attempts to mislead the public 
mind and favour certain opinions, explanations and 
practices which are directly opposed by incontrover- 
tible truth and matters of fact; he will see that the 
Baptist writers have not fairly and candidly investigated 
the historical and philological state of the question con- 
cerning baptism, and that the prevailing practice of 
Protestants in general, and even of some Baptists, in 
reference to the mode, has superior evidence' to sup- 
port it. But I conclude with committing myself and my 
book to the candor and indulgence of the reader, and 
to the blessing and direction of a gracious Providence, 
and with a desire ever to say, '* thy kingdom come^ 
thy will be done, on earth as it is done in heaven." 



ERRATA. 

Page 8, line 1 from bottom, after tvood read a7id. 
9, 2 from bottom, for ISPp read l^lp. 

16, 10 from bottom, for guin read qtda. 
43, 8 from top, the words if7ve are to credit St. Paul and 

his expositor Grrotius, to be read after this theny in 
the next line. 

52, 9 from top, for as yet read yet as it. 

53, 19 from bottom, for ex read e?. 

56, 18 fi'om bottom, for single read singular. 

77, 18 trom bottom, dele on. 

56. 13 from top, for proteuform resid proteoform. 



pf.fK '-'* 



cc cc 
vCcc 

-<CC ^c 



. C (c cc 
-., '<^(CC 


V^ 


1^ * 




^. -.'<C^C cC 


^1 ' C 


C' I ^ 


CC C- «^^. ;^S^ >;; '^ ^ 




- ^< * 






|jf 


- -^r"' <r 


ccc < 

^^c9^ 


^fM^M^^i'M 


^d ( ' K 


' j^^ -^^ 


^rr^l^ 


^^^EH^L 


Cc^^ c ^^"" v^^^^c c ^r 


^^^' ■ ^- 


^|L^,_'.C. 


%:,.C.C.-'.CZ 


' C ^" C r ^^p^ ^^C~C< C" iBT^ 


^^ ' '■ '/ 


^L^'- <r 


S^ccc: 


. ' c, fCT c c ^5^" ^ ' c?<cr C' c]~^^^^r^ 


<J^^' ■■'-'■" 


^^L_ ^'''- 


^s c ,<z 


C M^c c^ ^r^' ^ ^ ^-Cl d CT '^r~' 


V:^'' V ■ 


^ V^c 


^fex^ 


■■c Ift^lv^S?* 


^-•-^:^ * 


C^ ^ c , 


.<TC^<I1 


'km^trnf 


^y'^,: * 


^^(% 


''<TCJ<1 


^L C.r 


^cir < c 


:<:^c^^ 


■( . ^ 


^cc^ V^ ccccc 


1C ((, 4 

5c: ^ 


::^ cc 


:<tcjC-' 
<Cc:C4C 

cicxz 


tic ■ ^ 


&^: r^ /X^ 


VI ^^-^ SS> i^^c^^ 


<: ^ 


::^_ cc 




cc C 


^^ -^c >B^^ 


•' <: ■ • 


^ ^ 




cc c. 


■^c^ %9 '^^^ 


.^: ■'' < 


>- ^S^ 


C'-ro-^ 


€'-/:C: . 


^^r-^-^^^ _>- v5 — c c c- c c 
■^^ ^ f^9^' ccccc c 
^iCCi C<^C c ccccc 




^; ■ CC 


c^c. ■ 


€c-C : 


<L' X 


_ CC 


c c 


€c.C 


CI/X^' -^ Ci|C ccccc^ 


fC: '■ ^ 


^ <^c 


cr^c: 


CCc.x^, 




■> — .^- 


^ cc 


c c 


m<<Z:s. 


%c: ;. ^c£:' ■ 'fc 


c < 


Cl c 


c c 


(S_:CCLC 


^C ../C^Ct c(((c 


-^_ .C'C 


c C 


K^^K^9 


Cccr --c^Cf (ccc 


^ > 


^.-' <scc 


■ Cc c 


OL C£ 


' CTcC CrC<l^ c-(?cc 


c c 


:^ cEc 


■ x^-c 


cs-c <r ■ 


cc cccac" <'c^c 


^s 


. :cEC_ 


CCC 


<^(c^ 


CC cCccd 




;^- • <jmc 


^^C 


<Lcc CL" 


^:^C:^<<C 


: c c 


••; ■■ ^ ^ 


^2c C 


C'-C 


CTc'CCC- 


cc c CC c c <C" 


c: c 


<2CiC 


. ■ C c_ 


<t^-< ctt.: 


■ ccc c<Ccc<C 


;?;^ 


Xc<CjC 


' . c. cc 


Cccc c^. 


ccc c^rcxcc' c 


^■■,C( C 


' XXCjC 


Cc 4CLC': ^ 


cc r^Ccccc:' ^ "• 


c C 


<CJC~cCx 


C'C <rc\t <^ 


cc «rcc cc c 


c c 


' <rcc^cc:c 


cc < 


^c cc C<S 


cc ^dC C cc c < 


c c 


<r^xc. xcc 


<^' C ^J 


' c c ci:c 


cc <^cc cc c < 


or 


<:c<c ccc 


<c Ci 


" CcC <3C. 


cc €C~cc o:^ ^ c 


cc 


*<CIC '^ CC^ 


^c <z 




^^ ^'^c CC- 


c^c 


^cnc 'C ccjr 


. r Cc 


c*^ c <^tr 




crc- 4 


rrcc .ccc 


'.'C 4CZ 


c< c ^C 


cc ^scr^ c c ^ic 


cc 4C 

CC >^ 


rcc <c? 
:cc cc 


'^' CC 


c 


^C ^dT C 


^$^ ^ 


C( 


'C ^C cc 


<^ c ^c 


^<C cc? 


( ' Cc^ C 


- C -^id- C 


■ ^dT' CZ c ^cc 


cc ^ 


99 "^ 


- <X C^ 


•C ^d c< 


^ircrc^ ^^ <' 


C'C d 


^CC_(C 


c cc c 


c 'scr^ 


V ^ir^d'C -^^_ ' c 


c C ^ 


^^CC 5:c 


•^(- CSv'C 


C ^scT < 


^^ ^dT'cij^c, ^c^cs' < < 


CC 4C 


9^^ 


c cc C 


c ^cs 


^^^<I^C Ji^ V c c 


c c ^B^ 


C^XL c<x 
C C CC 


c;f ^ 


cC ^Ccc 


^ ^cr:c:^c: cc 


"^ <^ ^T 


C C «r 




c V^ ^^-c 


V^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 




' C^ 4 


C c 


W^B^FSaM 


^jm Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
^^3 Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 


CC c 


i;.'c 


-c: 03 




&^1 


^ <^ 


.- ^ 


•.<L oro 


3 PreservationTechnologies 


<S <l 


r" 


iK^^BTiiHl 




""r f^^' *^< 


' If 


c ^CI «jc- 
' '-<C <acc^^ 


^S| A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

P^S 1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnva 
P^S Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
^^9 (724)779-2111 






S^^^c^ 



a: c 

cc c c 

c<::. c c 






c d: 

<^^ 






ccrc<r 
ccrcc:;- 



c c 
cc 
c c 

cc 

CiC 

<z<: 

C C 
c c 

.- CO 



=^c;C 
"CC ^ 

. c:c c 

CC: C< 

i^^€ ; 

r c c 
^ cc 



^<X^3C>:': CX 



^^ 






^c;^Kc< 



c:^<^t"-c<r 



c^c <rccr 

^ -^ 

^cjc: ccc: 

^ e^j^CC^^ 

c cS^dcc acre 



' cc cacrc < 



<r c 
C C 



coc 

-c c<- 



cc: 

CCC 

c c 

c c: 

C C 

CCC 






fc?5 



cS^J 



cr.<r:'cc-: cc 

Z: <2Ccr cc 
1- <^ (C < c 
r.<^cc c 
: <? cc < 

.^ CCC- c 

^^Cc-c 

^.ca c 



